Preamble

The House met at Eleven o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BRISTOL CORPORATION BILL

Read the Third time, and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Board of Inland Revenue (Dismissals)

Mr. Fell: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent it is the normal procedure for the Board of Inland Revenue, in the event of their taking criminal proceedings against an employee, to dismiss the employee before the trial; and if he will list the precedents.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Henry Brooke): The Board of Inland Revenue generally feels compelled to dismiss an officer where a Departmental offence which warrants dismissal is established, notwithstanding that proceedings may also be instituted for an alleged criminal offence. There have been fourteen cases of this kind during the past five years.

Mr. Fell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the only case I know of as a precedent happened about a year ago when a man called Notley was in a similar position, and was treated not in this way but in the exactly opposite way; in other words, he was suspended pending proceedings being taken and dismissed after the criminal proceedings had taken place?

Mr. Brooke: There were, in fact, fourteen cases in the last five years where a man was dismissed in advance of criminal proceedings being taken. In the case to which my hon. Friend refers, the man unquestionably admitted the offences for which he was dismissed.

Mr. Fell: Can my right hon. Friend tell me in how many cases the men were not dismissed?

Mr. Brooke: No, Sir, not without notice.

Commander Agnew: Is there anything in the nature of a Departmental inquiry in cases of this kind before the action is taken of dismissing a man?

Mr. Brooke: This case has been very thoroughly investigated. The officer in question admitted in court that he had done the things for which he was dismissed.

Mr. Fell: On that last point, is it not also true that Mr. Coldham never admitted that he had taken any money by false pretences or anything else? He was cleared of all charges, as my right hon. Friend well knows.

Mr. Brooke: He was charged with a criminal offence about false pretences. He was acquitted on that charge, but he has not denied the Departmental offences for which he was dismissed.

Mr. Fell: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will set up an independent inquiry into the case of Mr. C. M. Coldham who was dismissed by the Board of Inland Revenue in March, 1955, and subsequently proceeded against by the Board for the offences for which he had been dismissed but was cleared of all charges by the court.

Mr. H. Brooke: No, Sir.

Mr. Fell: In view of the serious nature of the case and of the fact that the Chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue said to me quite definitely and admitted to me that the punishment which this man had received was out of all relation to the facts of the case, and that the former Chancellor of the Exchequer also had that feeling quite obviously about this case and expressed the view to me that he would see whether there was some way in which Mr. Coldham could be helped, will not my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary now really seriously consider this matter, which is one I cannot leave until I am satisfied?

Mr. Brooke: My hon. Friend has had the opportunity of discussing this matter with the Chairman of the Board of Inland


Revenue and with the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer. I find difficulty in accepting his statement that either of those two were as sympathetic towards him and towards Mr. Coldham as his question suggests. He did, in November, give notice that he would raise this matter on the Adjournment. I really do not think we can carry it further at Question Time.

Mr. H. Hynd: As a matter of principle, would it not be better, when an officer is involved in a case of this kind, to suspend him pending court proceedings?

Mr. Brooke: No, Sir. When we have a case, such as in another of the fourteen cases to which I referred, where an officer admits that he has helped a member of the public to prepare a false Income Tax return, one cannot suspend a man like that pending proceedings.

Mr. Fell: In view of the thoroughly unsatisfactory way in which this case has been handled, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Government Surplus Stocks (Losses)

Mr. Dodds: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how far he is still pressing to obtain any part of the £461,911 owed by purchasers of Government surplus stock; and what precautions have been taken to obviate the increase in the number of defaulters in respect of Government surplus stock sales.

Mr. H. Brooke: These claims were abandoned and written off as losses, only after every effort had been made to recover the sums due and it had become clear that there was no prospect of doing so. Most of the losses in question were incurred during the immediate post-war period, and it is not the case that the number of defaulters had been increasing. It is the practice of selling Departments to take all reasonable precautions to check a purchaser's ability to pay, and not to part with stores until the full purchase price has been paid.

Mr. Dodds: Can the right hon. Gentleman state whether any lessons have been learned from the past with regard to Government surplus stocks? Can he say that some precautions are now being taken to ensure that there is not overbuying by Government Departments,

which inevitably leads to huge surpluses being sold?

Mr. Brooke: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister told the House the other day that a special, fresh inquiry into this was being undertaken. I should like to point out to the hon. Member and to the House that most of this sum of £461,000 odd arises not because someone who bought the goods went off with them without paying for them, but because the purchaser failed to complete his contract. The goods were left in the hands of the Department concerned, which had to sell them in default, and proceeded to try to recover from the original purchaser the difference between the amount he promised to pay and the amount which the goods actually fetched.

British Petroleum Company

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why the chairman of the British Petroleum Company was not invited to meet him last Thursday with the other heads of State-owned industries.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Sir Edward Boyle): The chairman of this company is not the head of a statutory public corporation.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: While what the Economic Secretary says is quite true, would it not help the Government's campaign to stabilise or reduce prices if this Government-owned company showed a little more co-operation by reducing or stabilising the price of petrol which, of course, enters into costs very considerably?

Sir E. Boyle: As the hon. and gallant Gentleman is aware, this is a public limited company and not a nationalised industry, and the policy of this Government, as of its predecessors ever since 1914, has been one of non-intervention in commercial management.

Economic Situation (Discussions)

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what further cuts he requested in capital expenditure when he met the heads of State-owned industries last Thursday.

Sir E. Boyle: The purpose of my right hon. Friend's meeting was to have a


general discussion on the economic situation. The question of further cuts in capital expenditure did not arise.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: If, as in the case of recent widespread criticism, the proposed expenditure by the British Transport Commission on dining-cars and special coaches for very important personages shows that excessive capital expenditure is being embarked on, is not that a matter of interest to his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

Sir E. Boyle: That rather vulgar supplementary question does not arise out of the Question on the Order Paper.

Football Clubs (Tax)

Dr. D. Johnson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will consider making a reduction in the entertainments tax chargeable on the admission fees to professional football games.

Mr. H. Brooke: My hon. Friend will not expect me to anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget statement.

Dr. Johnson: None the less, may I ask my right hon. Friend, when consideration is given to this question, that particular attention will be given to the financial position of clubs such as those in the Third Division (North) which do not get very large gates?

Mr. Brooke: On behalf of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I last week received a most formidable deputation representing many sports. It included representatives of the Football Association, the Football League and the Rugby Football League, so what I do not know about the finances of football just now is not worth knowing.

Hire Purchase, (Finance Companies)

Mr. Gordon Walker: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he proposes to take, by promoting legislation or otherwise, to ensure the solvency and the sufficiency of capital resources of companies which invite loans from the public and relend the money for hire-purchase purposes.

Sir E. Boyle: My right hon. Friend has this question under consideration.

Mr. Gordon Walker: Is the Economic Secretary aware of the very sudden increase in such advertisements asking for loans of money from the public, and that it really is important to protect the public from deceit? Is he not also aware that the fact that these advertisements have suddenly sprung up in this way tends to show that the restrictions on hire purchase must be rather defective?

Sir E. Boyle: My right hon. Friend is grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for drawing attention to this. He fully recognises the importance of the matter, but there are complex legal questions involved and I cannot say anything further at present.

Full Employment

Mr. H. Hynd: asked the Secretary to the Treasury, in view of the analysis of the economic implication of full employment, as contained in Command Paper No. 9725, what proposals the Government have for dealing with this problem.

Sir E. Boyle: I have nothing to add to the reply I gave yesterday to a Question by the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Lewis).

Mr. Hynd: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a diagnosis is not a cure? Whilst this White Paper describes the difficulties, it does nothing to indicate how they can be solved.

Sir E. Boyle: I think the hon. Gentleman is not quite fair. I suggest that he look at the section on market conditions and price stability. But we shall have a great further opportunity of discussing this matter during the Budget debates.

Mr. Bottomley: May I ask the Economic Secretary if he is making a statement on behalf of the Government accepting responsibility for full employment, and disowning his right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour, who says that it is a matter for the employers?

Sir E. Boyle: I have nothing to add to my previous supplementary answer, which was, I think, perfectly fair and perfectly clear.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

North Sea (Overfishing)

Sir R. Boothby: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he is taking to prevent excessive fishing in the southern bight of the North Sea which, according to the report published by his Department, was partially responsible for the shortage of mature herrings in November of last year.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. D. Heathcoat Amory): As my hon. Friend will know from the statement to which he refers, the biological explanations of the recent changes are incomplete. I have instructed my representatives on the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea to ask the Council to arrange for an intensified study of the whole problem by their Herring Committee which is representative of the several countries whose fleets fish these stocks. The present International Fisheries Convention covering the North Sea does not provide for the regulation of the herring fishery.

Sir R. Boothby: Arising out of that Answer, is my right hon. Friend aware that it is estimated that the Danish catch of immature herrings alone has reached the colossal total of 100,000 tons a year—that is to say, about eighteen hundred million fish? In view of that, and in order to expedite matters, could he not make some direct representations to the Danish Government so that the experts of our Government and theirs—and possibly of the Dutch Government—could at least have a preliminary discussion on the matter, because it is urgent?

Mr. Amory: I agree with my hon. Friend that this is a very important and serious matter. I am also aware of the inroads made into the stocks of fish by the very heavy catches by Continental countries. I will consider the suggestion my hon. Friend has made.

River Irwell (Flood Protection Scheme)

Mr. Allaun: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how far the River Irwell flood prevention scheme will be affected by the recent circular 11/56 curtailing loan sanctions or grants for water and sewage disposal.

Mr. Amory: The Mersey River Board have submitted for grant-aid two further sections of the Irwell flood protection scheme, which are estimated to cost £62,000. These proposals will be allowed to go forward during the coming financial year.

Mr. Allaun: While thanking the Minister for that reply, may I inform him that there will be further and vital sections of the scheme submitted to him for consideration? When examining them, will he bear in mind the misery and ill-health inflicted by the 1954—and particularly the 1946—floods, when the living-rooms of thousand of Salford homes were flooded to a height of 3ft. by this filthy, stinking water, and that many of these homes have been damp ever since?

Mr. Amory: I will certainly bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman has said. Any further applications will be considered on their merits.

Mr. W. R. Williams: In the meantime, will the Minister go up there and have a look at the river? I am quite sure that if he had a look at it he would do what my hon. Friend asks.

Mr. Amory: From the hon. Gentleman's description it does not sound satisfactory. I will not dissent from what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Potatoes

Mr. Hurd: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what revised estimate he has made of the quantity of potatoes from abroad that will be needed to supplement the home crop in order to meet consumers' requirements until the new home crop is available.

Mr. Amory: Consumers' requirements of potatoes, and the quantity available in the United Kingdom, depend so much on the weather and other factors during the next few months that I am unable to give any useful estimate of the quantity it would be desirable to import from abroad. It is, however, clear that we must continue to import potatoes from all sources which can satisfy our plant health regulations.

Mr. Hurd: Has my right hon. Friend seen the statement which the chairman of the Potato Marketing Board made yesterday, that there is, in the Board's


estimation, a short-fall of about 300,000 tons on the home crop last year owing to the drought? Can he say how many potatoes have been imported so far to make good that shortage?

Mr. Amory: I have seen the statement to which my hon. Friend refers. Since last December, when we permitted the free import of ware potatoes, about 110,000 tons have been imported to date.

Mr. Collins: Whilst I appreciate that imports of potatoes are good, can the Minister say whether his Department is making any special effort to fill the expected gap of two or three weeks when there may be no potatoes available?

Mr. Amory: I am very anxious that all imports available should come into the country from every source that we can justify on plant health grounds.

Major Legge-Bourke: Will my right hon. Friend say whether the potatoes which have already come in have all been definitely of a standard which does not endanger the home crop by disease?

Mr. Amory: Yes, the reports that I have had indicate that in general they are of a high standard.

Mr. Callaghan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the price of potatoes compared with a year ago is scandalously high and that some of us have been supplied with details showing that the price per ton since price control was lifted has doubled from £17 to about £35?

Mr. Amory: I am sure the hon. Gentleman remembers that we had an exceptionally low yield last year because of the weather.

Worcestershire Advisory Panel (Representatives)

Commander Agnew: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether on the Advisory Panel in connection with applications from Worcestershire for deferment from National Service, horticultural as well as agricultural representatives are included.

Mr. Amory: There is no horticultural grower on the Worcestershire Panel, but one of the workers' representatives has a general knowledge of horticulture, and two of the three deputy members have practical experience of it.

Commander Agnew: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is an impression among horticultural growers that their applications for deferment do not receive as favourable consideration as do those of men engaged in general farming? Could my right hon. Friend do something to put a horticultural representative on the Advisory Panel?

Mr. Amory: These panels are not representative of any particular sections of agriculture. As my hon. and gallant Friend knows, they consist of equal numbers of representatives of farmers and farm workers. If there is an impression such as my hon. and gallant Friend suggests, it may be due to the fact that up till last October a smaller proportion of horticultural workers were eligible for deferment under the regulations then in force, but that no longer applies today. All workers producing food are treated equally.

Bacon (Marking)

Mr. Hurd: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will consult the interests concerned on the desirability of marking bacon in the shops to differentiate between home supplies, Empire supplies and foreign supplies, as in the case of butchers' meat.

Mr. Amory: There is already an Order made under the Merchandise Marks Act, 1926, requiring the marking of Empire and foreign bacon. I have no power tinder the Act to require the marking of home supplies of bacon or other foods, and I must leave it to the interests concerned to decide for themselves, as in the case of butchers' meat, whether voluntary action is desirable.

Mr. Hurd: Could my right hon. Friend say whether this Order applying to bacon is broadly in just the same terms as the Order applying to butchers' meat? In the butchers' shops we see the home product marked "Home killed."

Mr. Amory: Yes, I think it is, broadly speaking. I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that where there is a marked superiority in the home produce the retailers are likely to mark the product as home produced in their own interests.

Mr. Hurd: Are we not getting to that point with English bacon?

Mr. Amory: I believe we are.

Government Cold Store, Cardiff

Mr. Callaghan: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he had with the Government directors of the new cold store company before the decision was taken to put out of service nearly one half of the Government-owned cold store at Cardiff Docks.

Mr. Callaghan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This Question was on the Order Book yesterday addressed to the Secretary of State for the Home Department and Minister for Welsh Affairs, to ask him what discussions he had had with the Government directors, in his capacity as Minister for Welsh Affairs. This Question as it appears today is misrendered on the Order Paper. I do not wish to know, with respect to the Minister of Agriculture, what discussions he has had. Is he going to reply for the Home Secretary?

Mr. Speaker: I have frequently reminded the House that the transference of Questions is nothing to do with me.

Mr. Callaghan: This is more than the transference of a Question. This is a misrendering of a Question which has been transferred. If the Home Secretary does not wish to reply to the Question, although his Parliamentary Secretary has in the past intervened in this matter, surely when it is transferred it should be transferred in such a form as to ask the Minister of Agriculture to state what discussions the Home Secretary has had?

Mr. Speaker: If it is a misdirection of a Question, it is nothing to do with me.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Home Secretary was designated by the Government as Secretary of State for the Home Department and Minister for Welsh Affairs. Therefore, a Question about Welsh affairs ought to be addressed to him as Minister for Welsh Affairs.

Mr. Speaker: That Question ought to be addressed to the Prime Minister and not to me. I am quite innocent of the whole transaction.

Mr. Callaghan: May I ask what remedy I have in this case?

Sir R. Boothby: None.

Mr. Callaghan: In that case, I hope the hon. Gentleman will join with me in getting one. If I am asked, as I was, to visit the Home Office to see the Under-Secretary of State to discuss this matter with him and with the Chief Docks Manager at Cardiff, and at a later stage I ask the Home Secretary what is happening, surely it is reasonable—and I ask for your protection, Mr. Speaker—that I should have an answer from the Home Department?

Mr. Speaker: I do not think the hon. Member needs my protection. It seems to me that he is making full use, if not too much use, of the opportunities available to him.

Mr. Amory: This is a matter of executive administration and is therefore my responsibility.
The answer to the Question is: None, Sir, but the arrangement to place the Government cold store at Cardiff as well as eight other Government cold stores in other parts of the country on partial care and maintenance was discussed with my officials and has my approval, as commercial space in the areas concerned is sufficient to meet current demands.

Mr. Callaghan: On the substantial point, does the Minister propose to take action in this case in which private cold store interests hold a majority of places on the board of directors and are closing down these cold stores in order that they may fill their own cold stores first?

Mr. Amory: As the hon. Gentleman knows, in 1940, I believe, a pledge was given by the Government that these cold stores would not be used after the war in competition with private enterprise where adequate facilities existed. From the information that I have, the available refrigerated space at Cardiff at present, including one half of this cold store, is unoccupied to the extent of about 60 per cent.

Mr. J. Griffiths: In view of the changed circumstances of trade in Cardiff, and the importance of this cold storage for the purpose of developing alternative trade, do the Government still find themselves bound by that pledge? If they do, has the right hon. Gentleman considered what should be done about the situation in Cardiff in this respect?

Mr. Amory: If there is any evidence whatever that the cold storage space available in Cardiff is inadequate or likely to be inadequate, then there is the other half of this cold store, at present on a care and maintenance basis, which can be turned back again for use at short notice.

Mr. Gower: In view of the overall difficulties of the south-west ports, including Cardiff, will my right hon. Friend consult his right hon. and gallant Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department and Minister for Welsh Affairs on the future use of facilities of this kind? Does he not recognise that there is a big problem particularly in the coal ports in Cardiff?

Mr. Amory: I will certainly consult my right hon. and gallant Friend. The fact remains that if there is the slightest evidence that the cold storage space available is inadequate for present or likely trade, action can be taken. The other half of the cold store can then be made available.

Mr. Callaghan: Without wishing to detain the House any longer, may I ask the Minister whether he really thinks it proper to adhere to a pledge of this sort which is so clearly in restraint of trade and competition, when we have this cold store put out of action because privately-owned cold stores have got a pledge that they should be filled first? Does he not think that he should revise that pledge and ask the privately-owned interests if they will agree to fair competition?

Mr. Amory: There still remains the fact that to the best of my knowledge there is adequate cold storage space available in Cardiff.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Mill Fire, Keighley

Mr. Hobson: asked the Minister of Labour (1) if he will hold a public inquiry into the fire on 25th February, 1956, at Messrs. Franklin, Lorne Street, Keighley, in which eight lives were lost;
(2) on what date the last inspection of Messrs. Franklin, Lorne Street, Keighley, was made by one of Her Majesty's Inspectors of Factories; and if he will make

the report available to the hon. Member for Keighley;
(3) what action he is taking to prevent a repetition of the disaster arising out of the fire at Messrs. Franklin's, Keighley, and other mills, in view of the number of old mills in the district in which machinery is installed on wooden floors, and what new regulations he intends to introduce.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour and National Service (Mr. Robert Carr): I would like first of all to take this opportunity to express our sympathy with the relatives of all those who lost their lives in this tragic disaster.
The causes of the fire at this mill were fully considered at the recent inquest, and a detailed report has also been submitted by Her Majesty's Inspector of Factories for the district. I do not think a public inquiry would throw further light on the circumstances. The facts are being closely studied by Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Factories with a view to deciding what steps might be taken to prevent a repetition.
The last inspection of the mill before the fire was on 19th April, 1955, when questions concerning machinery not relevant to the fire were dealt with. Inspectors' reports are confidential documents, and I am not able to make a copy available to the hon. Member.

Mr. Hobson: Is the hon. Member aware that his reply will give great disappointment to thousands of my constituents who are employed in these ancient woollen mills, of which there are many in the West Riding of Yorkshire? Is he further aware that it has already been revealed at the inquest that there have been breaches of Sections 34, 35, 36 and 37 of the Factories Act, which deal with the provision of fire alarms, and that there was no fire alarm available in this mill and no system of warning? Is he aware that the coroner has already stated categorically that the primary cause of these eight deaths was the failure to have adequate warning? In view of these violations, can he inform the House whether there are to be prosecutions?

Mr. Carr: Prosecution is being considered, particularly in relation to Section 36 (7) of the Act, which deals with fire alarms. On the wider point, in the first


part of the supplementary question, I feel that there should be no cause for disappointment or alarm among the hon. Member's constituents. I said that the facts are being closely studied by Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Factories with a view to avoiding a repetition. I can assure the hon. Member that that is being done, and my right hon. Friend and myself will be in close consultation with the chief inspector when he has finished his investigation.

Mr. Hobson: I appreciate that, but I say this quite frankly: I do not want to be thought offensive, but sympathy is not enough in a disaster of this sort, which is the greatest mill disaster in Britain for many years. I have asked whether the hon. Member would make available the factory inspector's report to myself, as Member for that constituency. Is the hon. Member aware that Her Majesty's factory inspector visited this factory in 1951 and that reports were made by her that no fire alarm system was available? How is it that no action was taken on the subsequent visit in 1955?

Mr. Carr: The firm was informed and instructed after the visit to which the hon. Member refers; there can be no doubt about it having been made fully aware and instructed about the requirements of the Act in that connection. The only object of a public inquiry would be to find further facts. In the light of the inquest and the inspector's report, we believe that all the facts are known. I again assure the hon. Member that this matter is being investigated most closely and will have the personal attention of my right hon. Friend and myself. These reports are confidential documents—that is a practice of long standing—but if the hon. Member would like to come and discuss the matter in more detail we shall be very glad to talk to him about it.

Mr. J. Griffiths: I gather from the reply that there was an inspection by the factory inspector in 1951. Do I gather that there was not another until 1955? Since the hon. Gentleman will not make available to my hon. Friend a copy of the inspector's report of 1955, may I ask whether he would make it available to the trade union concerned if the union asked for it? In view of the fact that it is very important that people who work

in mills of this kind should be fully satisfied about the steps taken, is it not essential in these circumstances to hold a public inquiry? My experience is not in factories but elsewhere, and in the event of an accident in a mine the normal practice is to hold a full public inquiry, because it is essential to satisfy public opinion about what happened and what steps have been taken to prevent a repetition.

Mr. Carr: I will certainly take into account what the right hon. Gentleman says about that. I can assure him that the only desire of my right hon. Friend and myself is to treat this matter with the utmost seriousness and to take what action is possible to avoid a repetition of a tragic disaster of this kind. We will also consider his question about making available the report to the trade union, but I am advised that it is longstanding practice that these reports are confidential documents. We will certainly go into the matter further.

Textile Industry

Mr. Allaun: asked the Minister of Labour to what extent production cuts in the motor car industry have, so far, increased short-time working and redundancy in sections of the textile industry.

The Minister of Labour and National Service (Mr. Iain Macleod): I am aware of only two cases of short-time working, a firm in Lancashire making tyre fabrics and a firm in Yorkshire making car upholstery. At the former 300 and at the latter 100 workers are on short time. As regards redundancy, I understand that approximately 125 workers are being discharged by a firm in Lancashire making rayon yarn for motor tyres.

Mr. Allaun: Is the Minister aware of the fears in the North that the effects will be felt more acutely within the next six weeks? Is it not becoming increasingly obvious that if the Government permit unemployment in one industry it must spread to others, and that, having conjured up the genie of unemployment, the Government are completely losing control of it?

Mr. Macleod: I do not accept that. I think it is important to keep in mind the distinction between unemployment and short-time working. The unemployment figures are still at an all-time low


record for this time of the year. There is a good deal of short-time working, which is causing us much concern, and naturally the ripples of it spread to the firms which help to make components and other parts for the motor car industry. It is a matter which the Government and I myself, in particular, are watching very carefully.

Building Trade Dispute, Leeds

Sir F. Medlicott: asked the Minister of Labour if he will make a statement concerning the dispute which was reported to him, and which has lasted for 11 weeks, between the Amalgamated Society of Woodworkers and the Plumbing Trades Union, as to who shall put the windows in a block of offices in Leeds.

Mr. Iain Macleod: I was aware of the dispute, although it was not formally reported to me. It was dealt with by the disputes machinery of the building industry, and I understand that a settlement was reached which resulted in a resumption of the disputed work on 19th March.

Sir F. Medlicott: Is my right hon. Friend aware that while the unions concerned carry on these private wars the customers who are paying for their products are losing money? Will the Government screw up their courage and bring in legislation which will give the aggrieved persons some right of action against strikers who prolong strikes unnecessarily and unjustifiably?

Mr. Macleod: The answer to the question about legislation is, No, Sir. These demarcation disputes are, and for a long time have been, difficult and contentious matters, but it is worth remembering, as the Report of the Committee of Inquiry into another matter published this morning makes clear, that 99 out of 100 of these disputes are settled at once and on the spot through the ordinary machinery. I wish it were 100 out of 100.

Vacancies

Sir F. Medlicott: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that on 9th February 368,416 vacancies were left unfilled, whereas on 13th February there were 275,628 people unemployed; and what steps are being taken to correct this uneconomical maldistribution of labour.

Mr. Iain Macleod: The filling of vacancies is dependent upon finding suitable workers who are ready to go to the jobs, and this is one of the regular duties of the employment exchanges, through which vacancies are given the widest reasonable circulation. In the four weeks ended 8th February, 235,000 vacancies were filled.

Sir F. Medlicott: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there appears to be a lack of flexibility in trade union practice about the transfer of labour but that it has its roots in the housing problem, and that if he could persuade his right hon. Friend to scrap the Rent Acts he would make a great contribution towards solving this problem?

Mr. Hobson: How can the Minister equate the premises contained in the Question within the realm of a free society?

Mr. Macleod: It is impossible to equate vacancies with those people who are seeking jobs unless one has direction of labour. It can be done only by that method.

Shipyard Strike, Birkenhead

Sir F. Medlicott: asked the Minister of Labour if he can now make a statement on the trade dispute between the Amalgamated Society of Woodworkers, the Ship Constructors and Shipwrights Association, and the Shipwrights and Metal Workers Unions which has been outstanding in the Cammell Laird's shipyards at Birkenhead for some months.

Mr. Iain Macleod: The strike at Cammell Laird's shipyard, which has been in progress since last November, threatens to affect the employment of other workers in the yard and to result in the cancellation or loss of export orders. For some months my Ministry and the Trades Union Congress have made every effort to bring this difficult dispute to an end. When finally the efforts of the Trades Union Congress failed to secure agreement, I appointed, on the 12th March, a committee to inquire into the difficulties which had arisen, and to make recommendations.
The committee has concluded its hearings and its Report has been published this morning. A copy has been placed in the Library. It recommends that the question of which craftsmen should do


the work in dispute should be settled through the established procedure and that there should be a resumption of work forthwith.
In bringing this Report to the notice of the parties concerned, I have emphasised that a resumption of work is called for in the national interest, and I hope that this will now follow.

Sir F. Medlicott: Is my right hon. Friend aware that as new techniques and new processes are coming into operation all the time this kind of dispute will become increasingly prevalent? In view of the great damage to the national interest and the possible loss of £6 million of work—of which the workers might themselves some day stand in need—ought not my right hon. Friend to intervene more rapidly when it is apparent that the machinery, or the way in which the machinery is operated, is not becoming effective?

Mr. Macleod: I do not think that in this difficult situation an earlier intervention of mine would have been effective. This remains essentially an inter-union dispute, and it is right that it should be solved, if possible, at first by the trade unions concerned and, if not, then by the Trades Union Congress. The main point which I want to raise is that a committee has now said that this matter should go through the ordinary procedure of arbitration. I believe firmly that it is in the national interest that there should be a resumption of work forthwith pending a settlement of that particular matter.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Will the right hon. Gentleman again confirm that the established procedure the Trades Union Congress has developed over the years does meet these questions and enable them to be settled amicably? Will he refuse to give way to pressure of his hon. Friends to introduce legislation on this subject which would bedevil the situation? In view of the Report, I join with the Minister in expressing the hope that the dispute will soon come to an end and that there will be a resumption of work.

Mr. Macleod: I welcome very much what the right hon. Member said at the end of his supplementary question. Of course it is true that the dispute machinery in these cases, what is called the 1912 agreement, exists. It could, and I think

should, have settled the dispute long ago, but it must be a matter of concern that a settlement has not yet been arrived at.

Sir F. Medlicott: Is not my right hon. Friend aware that the essence of the demarcation machinery is that work should continue while a dispute is being discussed? If we are to have a repetition of six months' disastrous delay, should not my right hon. Friend exercise his power and influence much more rapidly?

Furniture Trade

Mr. Collins: asked the Minister of Labour if he has now considered the figures relating to discharges and short-time work in the furniture industry, supplied to him by the hon. Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Iain Macleod: As I informed the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Lewis) on 27th March, I am having inquiries made. When these are completed, I will write to the hon. Member.

Mr. Collins: Is the Minister aware that the difficulty in reconciling his figures with those of the union arises from the fact that the official figures take cognisance only of days worked short there and ignore the more prevalent practice of working fewer hours per day? Is he further aware that one furniture worker out of three has either been discharged or is working short time and that the position is getting worse? Will he look closely into the matter and inform the President of the Board of Trade of the position?

Mr. Macleod: As I undertook in the debate on employment, I am checking the discrepancy and, as soon as I can do so, I will write to the hon. Member.

Mr. Lewis: Although he has quoted the answer he gave me, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that to some extent that answer was misleading because he said that one of the main reasons for this short time and unemployment was seasonal causes? Yet in his Answer the right hon. Gentleman shows by figures that whereas in March, 1951, there were only a few unemployed and on short time, this March there are many thousands. If it is seasonal there should be some com-


parison of the figures. Is not the position entirely due to Government policy?

Mr. Macleod: The hon. Member takes a particular year to suit himself, but if he takes any other year he will see that seasonal causes are at work and that unemployment in the furniture industry varies from month to month throughout the year. That is abundantly clear.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL SERVICE

Personal Case

Commander Agnew: asked the Minister of Labour if, with regard to the case for deferment from National Service of the applicant from the Vale of Eve-sham, which has been the subject of representations to him, he will give the matter further consideration owing to the risk of that family's horticultural holding passing out of cultivation altogether in the event of the applicant being called up now for National Service.

Mr. Iain Macleod: My predecessor was advised in August, 1954, by the Agricultural Advisory Panel that there was insufficient work on the holding to justify this man's deferment. I have again studied the papers but can find no reason to interfere with this decision. His call-up has been postponed for more than a year on grounds of hardship, but the Military Service (Hardship) Committee has refused further postponement.

Commander Agnew: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, as the Question states, it is believed that there is risk of this particularly valuable agricultural land going out of cultivation because the family cannot make arrangements to hire labour to work it? If that is so, will he have another look at the matter with a view to seeing whether it is possible to give the man a further period of deferment?

Mr. Macleod: This matter has been looked at, I think, by three or perhaps four Ministers, and each has come to the same conclusion. The facts about the agricultural value of the holding were before the panel, whose decision was unanimous. Even having looked at the case again, I am afraid I cannot find it right to interfere.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME DEPARTMENT

Public Executioner (Memoirs)

Mr. Benn: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what restrictions there are to prevent a retired hangman from publicly revealing details of executions in which he has taken part; and what steps he has taken to bring these restrictions to the attention of retiring hangmen.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Major Gwilym Lloyd-George): As the question of instituting criminal proceedings in relation to a recent publication of details of executions is now under consideration, it would, I think, be inadvisable for me now to say more lest I should inadvertently say something which might prejudice those proceedings.

Mr. Benn: Does not the right hon. and gallant Gentleman agree in principle that the public interest in these memoirs and other facts about hanging necessarily go with the system of hanging? Is that not so degrading in itself that it constitutes a case for abolition?

Major Lloyd-George: I am afraid I could not pursue that matter in question and answer. I would not agree with the first part of the supplementary question, but I do not think I could say anything more for the reasons given in my original reply.

Mr. Hyde: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that Mr. Pierrepoint's father was also a public hangman and published his memoirs about 35 years ago? There was no official complaint of any kind made at that time. In view of the public interest in the death penalty at present, would not my right hon. and gallant Friend agree that the full facts should be disclosed? Who is in a better position to disclose them than the gentleman who was described in the Report of the Royal Commission as the most experienced public executioner in the country?

Major Lloyd-George: Although I do not agree with what my hon. Friend has said, I do not think I should say more at this moment.

Highgate Cemetery (Admissions)

Mr. Freeth: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department under what regulations and by what authority,


between 2 p.m. and 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 14th March, within normally permitted entry hours, a woman was refused admittance by the police to Highgate Cemetery for the purpose of placing flowers on the grave of a deceased relative.

Major Lloyd-George: The cemetery, which is owned by a private company, was closed to the general public between 1 p.m. and 3 p.m. on 14th March by order of the company. The police were not responsible for refusing admission.

Mr. Freeth: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that the police appeared to consider that they were in a position to refuse admission to this cemetery during that time? Is he aware that a witness to the event mentioned in the Question approached a police superintendent and spoke to him and the superintendent told him he had his instructions and nothing could be done about admitting this woman?

Major Lloyd-George: With that I entirely agree, but that does not say it was the police who refused admission. This was on the occasion of the unveiling of a memorial to Karl Marx, by Mr. Harry Pollitt I believe. The cemetery is owned by a private company which refused admission and the police had to see that traffic moved and so on, but they refused no one admission at all.

Mr. Gordon Walker: Is it not an extraordinary thing that cemeteries can be closed to mourners and others? If private companies can do this, will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman consider some means, through legislation or otherwise, to prevent such a practice? Is it not a shocking thing for people to find that a cemetery is closed because it happens to be private property?

Major Lloyd-George: That is a larger question and, as I have indicated, this was a rather different case from the normal. I suppose the owners did not want too many people inside the cemetery. I cannot possibly consider legislation on the matter.

Mr. Freeth: Is it a purely private company which owns the cemetery, or does a local authority own it? Will my right hon. and gallant Friend take some steps to prevent closing of these areas of

ground to which many people come from considerable distances and are not aware that they are likely to find them closed at odd times? Will he take some steps to remedy the situation?

Major Lloyd-George: My information is that the cemetery is owned by a private company. I would suggest to my hon. Friend that we must keep a sense of proportion in these matters. This was the only occasion which has been brought to my notice, and it was an exceptional occasion.

Mr. G. Jeger: Is it really a fact that the grave of Karl Marx is in a cemetery which is owned by private enterprise and that he was buried by private enterprise?

Mrs. Thompson (Execution)

Sir R. Boothby: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will now give the facts about the execution of Edith Thompson in 1923, and publish the full text of the instructions subsequently issued to prison governors regarding executions in general, indicating how far these instructions were affected by the facts in Mrs. Thompson's case.

Mr. Fenner Brockway: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish the full facts regarding the circumstances of the execution of Edith Thompson; and how far the circumstances in that case necessitated amendments to the rules concerning the conduct of executions.

Major Lloyd-George: I would refer to the Answer which I gave on 27th March to Questions by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), to which I have nothing to add.

Sir R. Boothby: Would my right hon. and gallant Friend not agree that that answer gave an account of the circumstances surrounding Mrs. Thompson's execution which differed very markedly from the impression which his Department has hitherto sought to give to both Houses of Parliament? I am wondering whether in the circumstances my right hon. and gallant Friend would not reconsider his decision not to publish the instructions to prison governors, as I feel that the House of Commons should now be informed of the full facts which surround this business.

Major Lloyd-George: I cannot possibly accept responsibility as my hon. Friend suggests on behalf of my Department or of any holder of this office, either myself or my predecessors, for any of the circumstances which have led to the disputes in this case. Most of the statements—in fact all the statements—have been made by other people outside, and I am satisfied, having gone into this matter with very great care, that all the relevant facts are known. The first half of the instructions to governors was issued, I believe, in 1928 as a result of the trial and all the circumstances. The other part was given in the other place the other day, and there is nothing more I can add.

Mr. Brockway: In view of the many statements which have been made in this matter and the acknowledgment in the Home Secretary's reply yesterday that the woman had to be carried to the scaffold and her body had to be supported on the scaffold, is it not desirable that there should be a full inquiry into this matter so that the public might be quite sure that the facts have been adequately revealed?

Major Lloyd-George: I hope the hon. Member will take it from me that there are no facts which have not been revealed in regard to this case. A lot of suggestions have been made over the years—

Mr. Emrys Hughes: What did the hangman say in Glasgow?

Major Lloyd-George: He said nothing different to what I have said here. I have gone into this matter with very great care. I beg the hon. Member to read what is available to the public—that is, the evidence given before the Royal Commission—from which he would see that my statement is pretty accurate

Mr. Younger: Whatever may have been the merits of the Home Office decision in the past not to give full information when these stories started going round, does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman not agree that it was his Department which took the initiative in making a statement, both on this particular execution and on the instructions to governors, when his Joint Under-Secretary made a statement in the other place? Does the Home Secretary not consider it very unfortunate indeed that when the Home Office decided to take that initiative, it nevertheless gave information on

both points which, no doubt quite unintentionally, turned out to be somewhat misleading and that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has had to amplify both points since the statement was made? Is he aware that this has caused a great deal of distrust and that the Home Secretary now has something to live down in this matter?

Major Lloyd-George: I am very sorry that I cannot possibly accept any part of the right hon. Gentleman's statement. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I will not accept any part of it—I repeat that. The fact is that the initiative did not come from the Home Office. It came from Mr. Koestler and his articles were published in the Observer.

Mr. Younger: rose—

Major Lloyd-George: The right hon. Gentleman must let me finish. I have been attacked constantly on this, and I am determined to see that my side of the case is put. It was Mr. Koestler's articles in the Observer—the precursor to his book—which started the whole of this question, particularly in regard to Mrs. Thompson's execution. It was the statements made in his articles that led to the statement made by my noble Friend in the House of Lords, and it was not the initiative of the Home Office at all. I am not responsible nor would I take any responsibility for what has happened in 1923 and since.

Mr. Younger: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that there have been articles and statements comparable to those of Mr. Koestler for years past and that there was a new departure when his Department decided to make a formal statement in relation to them in another place, and that on both points, as I said before, the statement which was made turned out to be misleading in the sense that the impression was created that Mr. Koestler had misquoted the instructions, whereas in fact what he had done was to quote quite accurately that part of the instruction which the House Office itself had previously seen fit to make public? It was entirely the withholding of it from the public that caused Mr. Koestler to give that misleading information. Is the Home Secretary also aware that a quite wrong impression was created in the statement about the facts of Mrs. Thompson's execution?

Major Lloyd-George: This is typical of what has been going on the whole time. The statement originally made about Mrs. Thompson was made by a Member of the House in the 1948 debate. That could have been corrected then, but it was not—it was nothing to do with me anyway; but that was the statement then made. It has been repeated in Mr. Koestler's articles. It was not a statement made on behalf of the Home Office. A Question was asked, and in answer to that Question the statement was made by my noble Friend in the House of Lords. The fact remains, if we are to have controversy, as we will, on the question of capital punishment, that there is no need to descend to this kind of thing. Let us have this as a matter of conscience. [Interruption.] Certainly. Statements have been made about this execution which are entirely without foundation, and I am taking full responsibility for my office in saying that the answer which I gave yesterday is the correct answer with regard to the whole of this business.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: This is becoming a debate and there are other Questions on the Order Paper.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: On a point of order. In view of the attempt to hush up this business and the unsatisfactory nature of the answer, I give notice that I shall raise it on the Adjournment.

Mr. Speaker: In giving notice that he intends to raise the matter on the Adjournment, the hon. Member should not use the opportunity to make any imputation. That is quite out of order.

Soliciting (Prosecutions)

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department to what extent the number of prosecutions for soliciting heard at Bow Street and Marlborough Street magistrates' courts has fallen in recent weeks; and what are the reasons therefor.

Major Lloyd-George: In the three weeks ended 24th March, 202 prosecutions for soliciting were heard at Bow Street Magistrates' Court, compared with 328 in the preceding three weeks. At Marlborough Street Magistrates' Court there were 91, compared with 60 in the

preceding three weeks. I am informed by the Commissioner of Police that these variations are not attributable to any one cause, and it is not surprising that the number of arrests varies from time to time since the police are empowered to arrest only when they have reasonable grounds for suspecting an offence against the law.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say whether it is not a fact that by working to the strict letter of the law the number of police arrests fell to the extent shown during the period to which he has referred? Has there not been some little difficulty as a result of working to rule?

Major Lloyd-George: No. The Commissioner assures me that that is not so. As the hon. and gallant Member will, I am sure, appreciate, this is an extremely difficult law to enforce. Our sympathy ought to be extended to these men, and particularly the younger ones, who have to carry it out. I do not think that some of the allegations which have been made against them, either in this House or outside, help them in carrying out an extremely difficult task.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRISONS

Lavatories

Mr. V. Yates: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many lavatories there are on each landing in the average closed local prison; and how many prisoners each lavatory serves, including those on landings where the men are sleeping three in a cell.

Major Lloyd-George: If there are cells on only one side of a landing there is normally one lavatory; if there are cells on both sides there are normally two. There are normally about 18 prisoners to each landing lavatory. On landings where men are sleeping three in a cell the average number of prisoners per lavatory is 25.

Mr. Yates: Does the Home Secretary consider that the sanitary arrangements are adequate? Is it not very difficult to train prisoners in conditions in which they cannot have self-respect, in the in-sanitary conditions which are characteristic of British prisons?

Major Lloyd-George: I would not say they were adequate. Indeed there are a good many things we would like to see done. As the hon. Member is aware, however, certain restrictions are at present operating. The real difficulty arises from the fact that there are still so many instances of three men occupying a cell. As the number is reduced—and it is being reduced—I hope that it will improve the position.

Officers' Living Accommodation

Mr. V. Yates: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prison officers are at present living inside Her Majesty's prisons; and how many are in Strangeways Prison, Manchester.

Major Lloyd-George: At closed establishments 45 men and 47 women, including 12 women but no men at Strangeways Prison, Manchester. At open establishments 49 men and 23 women.

Mr. Yates: Is it not unsatisfactory that so many officers should have to live inside the prisons, and in some cases, I think, in the cells? How long will it be before adequate accommodation is provided?

Major Lloyd-George: I am hoping by 1956–57—that is, next year—to be able to find accommodation which will overcome these figures.

Mailbags

Mr. V. Yates: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners in Her Majesty's prisons are at present engaged on making mailbags; and how many are so employed in Manchester, Winson Green, Birmingham, Pentonville, and Wandsworth prisons, respectively.

Major Lloyd-George: On 21st March this year 3,065 prisoners were employed on making or repairing mailbags. Of these 135 were at Manchester, 176 at Birmingham, 111 at Pentonville and 291 at Wandsworth.

Mr. Yates: Would the Home Secretary not consider that this work is soul-destroying, and that in other countries alternative work with plastics is provided for prisoners? Will he consider taking some action to reduce the very serious

amount of soul-destroying work given to the prisoners?

Major Lloyd-George: I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman that it is important that we should not have soul-destroying work when there are other varieties of work, as there are. I am watching the matter the whole time, for I am anxious to do anything I can to see that work of as interesting nature as possible is given.

PERSONAL STATEMENT

Mr. Baird: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to make a personal statement.
At Question Time yesterday I asked about the repatriation to Hong Kong of the Chinese Nationalist saboteur who placed a time-bomb in the Indian plane which was refuelling at Hong Kong on its journey from Peking to Bandaung on 11th April, 1955. After Question Time the matter was raised on a point of order by my colleague the hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Daines), who objected to my statement that this saboteur had been paid £40,000 indirectly by the Americans for this dastardly work.
The hon. Member did not inform me he intended to raise the matter and I was not in my place to defend myself. Answering a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Fenner Brockway), you said, Mr. Speaker:
One has to rely on the co-operation of the House and the good sense of hon. Members to avoid this sort of regrettable incident in future."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th March, 1956; Vol. 550, c. 2162.]
I believe that my statement was quite correct. I based my charges on the official Colonial Office hand-out on this subject, on 10th January this year, which says:
In the course of the subsequent police investigations of persons who had been associated with Chow Tse Ming"—
that is, the saboteur—
before his departure for Formosa evidence came to light to suggest that he had been procured by persons connected with a Kuomintang intelligence organisation and had been offered a reward. There was also evidence that on four separate occasions subsequent to the crash he had admitted his complicity. The accounts of what he is alleged to have said on each occasion varied slightly in detail but in general they strongly corroborated each other and contained statements that he


admitted that (a) he had sabotaged the aircraft; (b) he had been promised a reward of 600,000 Hong Kong dollars"—
that is the equivalent of £40,000—
(c)he had used a small time-bomb which made a slight ticking noise; and (d) he intended to stow away to Formosa. In addition, there was evidence that shortly before the crash and subsequently until he went to Formosa, Chow Tse Ming spent some hundreds of dollars, o a sum well beyond his normal means.
This man was paid by a Kuomintang intelligence agency, but as the Formosan Government is only sustained by the military and financial subsidies of the Americans and could not exist without that support, I feel that I was quite justified in what I said. May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to say on what grounds you considered my question a "regrettable incident"?

Mr. Speaker: I thought it proper to allow the hon. Member to tell the House what was in his mind when he asked his question. The language he actually used, referring to the saboteur, was:
…saboteur who placed a bomb in the Indian plane which was refuelling at Hong Kong…I believe that he was afterwards paid £40,000 indirectly by the Americans for doing it…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th March, 1956; Vol. 550, c. 2161.]
The hon. Member now has told us that what he meant was that, as the Americans give money by way of subsidy to the Kuomintang, the money must originally, in his view—or may originally, in his view, though he adduced no evidence about it—have come from the Americans. If I misunderstood the hon. Member's reference to the man's having been paid £40,000 indirectly by the Americans, I was not the only one who did so. I thought it proper to allow him the opportunity of explaining to the House what was in his mind.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Heath]

HIGHER TECHNICAL EDUCATION, TEES-SIDE

12.5 p.m.

Mr. H. A. Marquand: I am very grateful for the opportunity given to me this morning to draw attention to the omission from the Government's White Paper on Technical Education, Cmd. 9703, of any reference to the need for special development of technical education on Tees-side. I hope that I shall be able to confine my remarks to such a short time that other hon. Members from Tees-side will have the opportunity to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker. I particularly regret that my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd) is prevented by other duties from being here this morning, because it was he who first drew attention in this House to the omission of any reference to Tees-side from the White Paper.
I have worked in various capacities in many Government Departments, and I cannot help feeling, in consequence of that experience, that in Whitehall there is some ignorance about Tees-side. There is a practice of referring to the North-East Coast and of assuming that if something be done for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, it may be, or Sunderland, or some other town on the North-East Coast, it therefore applies to the whole of that region. Tees-side is undoubtedly on the North-East Coast, but I do wish to emphasise that it is a distinct industrial area.
There are three great rivers running into the North Sea there, the Tyne, the Wear and the Tees, and each of them has its own distinct industrial area. The fact that something may be done, for example, at Newcastle, where there is a famous college of engineering, or at Sunderland, where there is a very efficient technical college, does not necessarily mean it satisfies the needs of Tees-side.
It is the latest of those three industrial areas to develop, and just because of that it is now the most rapidly expanding of them all. It is, I think we can truly say, the most rapidly expanding industrial area in the whole of Great Britain at the present time. It stretches from the County Borough of Darlington on the west to the County Borough of West Hartlepool on the east and from Stockton-on-Tees in the north to Guisborough


in the south, and contains a population numbered by the census at 555,000 in 1951, and estimated to be today nearly 562,000. Therefore, the population of this area is expanding very rapidly indeed.
This is in part due to the make up of the population, which, fortunately, contains a comparatively large proportion of young and vigorous people, but it is also due to the attraction of population to the area from other regions by the rapid growth of industry. Already, it contains the largest centre of the chemical industry in this country.

Mr. J. E. S. Simon: In the Commonwealth.

Mr. Marquand: That may well be, but I do not wish to say anything I have not evidence to prove.
Billingham was largely developed by Imperial Chemical Industries during the days of the depression, and I.C.I. has started and is rapidly expanding another immense area called Wilton, to the south of the River Tees. I shall say little about that because Wilton lies in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland (Mr. Palmer), who, if he were fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, no doubt could tell us more about the immense investment now going on in that area.
The area of Tees-side as a whole is perhaps chiefly famous for its steel industry. Here again, though the steel industry may be about seventy or eighty years old in that part of the country, it is now being rapidly modernised. Both the Dorman Long combine and the South Durham combine have in recent years carried out enormous expansions and have brought their works very much up to date. Recently they have obtained very substantial and important export orders which have pleased the whole country.
Associated with iron and steel is structural engineering and general engineering. For example, there is the famous firm of Head, Wrightson of Thornaby, not to speak of the Tees-side Bridge and other structural engineering concerns in Middlesbrough itself. Not only in the case of steel and in these other sections of industry do we have some of the most rapidly expanding concerns in the

country, but also—and this, I am afraid, is sometimes little realised in the rest of the country—we have two very important ship building yards, in which recently there have been constructed the largest oil tankers ever made in the world.
So rapid is this industrial expansion that the needs for technical manpower are not being met even now. One has only to look at the Middlesbrough Evening Gazette to see every single day large advertisements for technically skilled manpower, very large advertisements indeed, not the usual small advertisements for labour wanted. The fact that these advertisements are inserted by I.C.I. and other firms shows that the scarcity of technically qualified men is already becoming something approaching a limiting factor to the expansion of these vital, basic exporting industries.
The need for labour of this kind is felt acutely all over the country, and can only be met by training more people. The people who are to work in the industries of Middlesbrough, Thornaby, Stockton, and other parts of this area can only be trained we submit, within the area itself.
I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary, who I am pleased to see, is to reply to what we have to say, will not suggest that the fact that this is admittedly the most rapidly expanding industrial area in the country is irrelevant to the question I have raised. The Minister of Education himself said on 8th March:
The quality of the industry there is not the point. The point is whether there is any college which merits this particular grading. If there is, naturally I will consider h."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th March, 1956; Vol. 346, c. 2299.]
The Government White Paper says that there is a five-year plan for the expansion of technical education, likely to develop later into a longer and wider plan, we hope; the aim is to increase by 50 per cent, the output of highly trained technologists and technicians, and this is to be based principally on twenty-four colleges. Yet eleven of these colleges we find, to our great astonishment, are in London or in the London area, going out to West Ham, whereas only four are in the North of England.
Those figures do seem to indicate a somewhat unreal proportion. While admitting quite gladly, as one must, of course, the excellence of the technical


education provided by the County Borough of West Ham or the London County Council—whoever it may be—in this part of the country, we submit it none the less remains true, after all, that a very large proportion of the total industry of Great Britain is to be found in the North of England, a proportion very much greater than that indicated by the ratio of four to eleven.
The White Paper lays great emphasis on what is called the sandwich course, providing an opportunity for men and women to learn these technological sciences not only in college but while they are at work, and to pass from work to college and college to work throughout a period of three years or so. Surely, more attention might have been paid to the location of industry, and more attention might have been paid in the selection of places upon which to base this programme of expansion, to whether or not such places had already developed sandwich courses.
We hope that the sentence at the end of paragraph 69 of the White Paper will enable the Minister, when he has the facts before him, to reconsider the omission of Tees-side from this list of colleges. The last sentence of paragraph 69 reads:
In addition, there may be a few other colleges which, because of developments now in train or the movement of industry, may qualify for 75 per cent. grant.
We feel that there is a college on Teesside which qualifies under those two conditions; there are new developments now in train and, as I have already said, there are movements of industry going on there which make this area so important that special provision ought to be made.
We base our claim partly on the existence of these great new developments in industry and partly on the existence already of a college of good quality satisfying, we think, almost all the requirements which any other of these colleges can have satisfied. The name of that college is Constantine College. It happens to be in my constituency, but there is, I am sure, general agreement among hon. Members from the area that this is the college upon which the Minister's plans ought to be based.
Middlesbrough is the focal point of the region I described, and the county

borough has provided this college and sustained it over many years. It will obviously need a 75 per cent. grant from the central Government if it is adequately to carry out what it wants to do to serve the whole of this large region in its need for more highly trained men.
The college had 2,200 students before the war, including its art department. Today, it has 4,700, excluding its art department which is now a separate undertaking. It fully anticipates and is budgeting for, as far as it can, in all its plans, having 7,000 students by 1962, excluding its art department. Its achievement has really been quite considerable between 1945 and 1953. Seventy-five students gained London external degrees, 36 in engineering, 36 in B.Sc. special, and 3 in B.Sc. general. Its courses include, for degree standard, mechanical engineering, civil engineering, chemistry, physics, and metallurgy.
In 1952, 17 per cent. of Higher National Diplomas awarded in the whole of England and Wales were awarded to Constantine College students; in 1953, 22 per cent.; in 1954, 18 per cent.; in 1955, 17 per cent. The population of the area served is less than 2 per cent. of that in all England and Wales; yet the proportion of Higher National Diplomas runs on an average at 17 to 19 per cent. during the last few years. Surely, this is evidence that the college is well administered and is able to draw upon a sufficiently large number of highly intelligent men and women to do the kind of work which is now required.
Great emphasis is laid in the White Paper on sandwich courses. Since 1938 Constantine College has had a steadily increasing number of students taking these courses, the present number being 169. The Minister said on 8th November last that there were 1,522 such students in England and Wales. Again, therefore, Constantine College, serving Tees-side, has 11 per cent. of all students in England and Wales taking sandwich courses.
It seems that failure to qualify for the full 75 per cent. grant two years ago when an inspection was made by Her Majesty's inspectors for this purpose must really have been a very narrow failure indeed in view of what I have said. Certainly, the Middlesbrough education authority is mystified and cannot quite understand


how it was that the college failed to qualify. I do not know. I can only guess. If it was in any way due to inadequacy of staff, the education authority would be only too glad to undertake to strengthen the staff.
Was it, and I hope it was not, because the college is admittedly cramped in its present surroundings? It is not large enough at present to contain all the students who use it. It has to operate in all kinds of extensions and annexes for some of its courses, but the college and the education authority have plans for expansion. They are somewhat complicated because they require the pulling down of existing high schools which will then have to be provided in another part of the town, but adequate plans have already been prepared and submitted for this purpose. I understand that, at the official level at any rate, substantial agreement about the validity and usefulness of these plans has been reached and that permission has been given to the authority to go ahead with architectural plans for this development.
I believe that I am not divulging any confidential information in saying that the Middlesbrough authority knows exactly what it has to do and has a reasonable plan to go ahead and make this new construction in a comparatively short period of time. It is anxious and ready to do this in order to serve the needs of this wide area. I believe that it has a very strong case indeed for assistance from the Government to the extent of a 75 per cent. grant for that purpose. In any case, I feel that the local needs are so great that it would be a shame and a grave error not to provide in the immediate future for higher technological education for this rapidly expanding area.

12.23 p.m.

Mr. J. E. S. Simon: The whole House will be most grateful to the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) for what seemed to me, if I may say so with respect, a masterly and completely convincing exposition of the problem of providing a college of advanced technology at Tees-side. I say that as one who is not automatically or inevitably convinced by everything the right hon. Gentleman generally says.
The provision of a college of advanced technology in any area must depend upon a number of factors. The first is that there should be a reasonable balance in the country. The right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East has drawn attention to the astonishing fact that of the 22 colleges proposed for England alone, no fewer than 12 are in the South and no fewer than 11 in the area of Greater London. In view of the general planning policy which the Government and the London County Council have in mind for the removal of industry from London, that seems to me a most astonishing situation. Twelve of the colleges are in the South, of which 11 are in Greater London, and five are in the Midlands and only five in the North. The great industrial area of Tees-side, which the right hon. Member described so well, is left entirely unprovided.
In that area there is the greatest chemical works in the British Commonwealth at Billingham, a vast new development at Wilton, a new steel mills and new rolling mills and further extensions envisaged at Lackenby, shipbuilding and engineering, with a great engineering works at Thornaby and constructional engineering works on the banks of the Tees. It is exactly the kind of area that needs a college of advanced technology.
Several things count in deciding where to put a college of advanced technology. There is, first, a tradition of craftsmanship, which we certainly find on Teesside. Secondly, there is the attitude of the local authorities, which is most cooperative in that area. They have made great sacrifices to provide advanced technical education. Thirdly, there is the attitude of enlightened employers. Any hon. Member representing any Tees-side constituency will say with pride that it is an area singularly free from any industrial trouble and, indeed, that the employers have made very great and interesting innovations in providing schemes for training technicians and technologists for local industry.
The hon. Member for Cleveland (Mr. Palmer) will no doubt be able to speak of I.C.I. schemes for taking boys from grammar schools, which is a most fruitful avenue of approach to the problem. That attitude of the employers is particularly


important in view of the fact that paragraph 99 of the White Paper on Technical Education says that it is industry and commerce which must provide the bulk of the teachers in the colleges of advanced technology.
I mentioned the attitude of employers. Equally important is the attitude of trade union leaders. There again, I will not say that Tees-side is unique, but it is certainly second to none in the en-enlightened attitude of trade union leaders in this respect. I remember going to see the opening of an apprentices' school by the Head, Wrightson. Company. Every single one of the trade union leaders was there to support it and to offer his co-operation and help.
Finally, there must be an existing technical college which has proved itself efficient and is capable of expansion. The right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East has described the Constantine College, of which Middlesbrough is justly proud. It is not necessary for me to cover the ground which the right hon. Member has covered so admirably, but I should like to ask my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education some specific questions.
As the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East said, 11 per cent. of the total sandwich courses provided by technical colleges in 1955 were provided by Constantine College. I should be grateful if my hon. Friend would say which of the colleges mentioned in paragraph 68 of the White Paper on Technical Education exceeded that proportion. Did any have a smaller proportion? If so, why was Constantine College omitted from the list and those colleges chosen? Constantine College had 169 out of the 1,522 sandwich course students at 36 colleges at that time.
The right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East also gave figures for the Higher National Diploma, to which the White Paper rightly pays particular attention. The figures for Constantine College varied between 17 per cent. and 22 per cent. of the total for the country over the last four years. Did any of the colleges mentioned in paragraph 68 of the White Paper have better figures and, if so, which? Did any of them do worse, and, if so, which? If they did worse,

why were they chosen and Constantine not chosen?
The House will be anxious to hear the hon. Members for The Hartlepools (Mr. D. Jones) and Cleveland, if they are fortunate enough to catch your eye, Sir, because, by their training, they can speak with special authority on this matter. However, I shall refer, as the right hon. Gentleman did, to paragraph 69 of the White Paper, which states:
There may be a few other colleges which, because of developments now in train or the movement of industry, may qualify for 75 per cent. grant.
I support the right hon. Gentleman as strongly as I can in saying that, because of the developments in training on Teesside and at Constantine, and because of the movement of industry there, this institute certainly qualifies, and can take its valuable part in providing a college of advanced technology for an area which badly needs it.

12.31 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Palmer: I want briefly to support the able speeches made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) and the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Middlesbrough, West (Mr. Simon). My right hon. Friend was quite right to say that there is ignorance in the South of England about the geography of the North although in a sense I speak as a Southerner. It is sometimes felt by people living in the South that the Tees and the Tyne are almost one river but, of course, that is not the case. Also I know that the hon. and learned Member for Middlesbrough, West will agree with me when I say that although Middlesbrough may be the focal point of Teesside, and perhaps the hub of industrial Tees-side, it is by no means the whole of it. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. D. Jones) will be with me 100 per cent. in that view.
Because much of the new industrial development to which reference has been made is to be found outside Middlesbrough, and some of it to the east in Cleveland, although the area is beautiful in the physical sense, having much fine agricultural country, along the banks of the Tees we have shipbuilding, and much steel working. Some of the steelmaking is fairly old, much of it new. I


need hardly say that we also now have chemicals. Since 1946 there has been developed in Cleveland the amazing bright, new, shining plant of the Imperial Chemical Industries, at Wilton. Although, politically, in the spring last year it may have caused me a little trouble—I regard that as a passing squall—I am proud to think that in my constituency we have the home of the great new Wilton I.C.I. plant.
I have a few figures here about the size of the development, which may interest the House. The board of I.C.I. has authorised capital expenditure on that one site to the ex tent of £75 million. Over £50 million has been spent already, and expenditure is now running at the astonishing rate of £1 million a month. In the coming development programme five new plants are to be built. Because this work is of vital importance to the country, and to our national existence as an exporting and trading nation, ancillary actions of all kinds need to be undertaken by the company to kep pace with the gigantic growth of manufacturing processes.
Among these, not the least important is the training and the education of the necessary technicians and technologists. The hon. and learned Member for Middlesbrough, West was quite right in saying that I.C.I. is one of the most progressive companies in the country as regards training schemes. Some years ago I had the honour and privilege to pay a visit to the United States when I was temporarily out of the House. I went as a member of one of the British productivity teams studying education and training in that country. We had with us some representatives of I.C.I. Through my personal contact and friendship with them at that time I felt that there was not much which, in many senses, United States industry could teach such a managerially progressive concern as I.C.I. about industrial trading and education.
Of course, for this work to be effective it must be supported by great activity at a local educational level; the public education authorities and the firms in question must work closely hand in hand. For this reason I feel that because of the nature of the Tees-side chemical development, particularly in my constituency,

plus the expansion of the other industries, especially steel-making, it cannot be argued seriously that Tees-side does not deserve a technological institute of the very highest standard, recognised not only locally but throughout the United Kingdom, for its scientific reputation. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, East that we have already the makings of such a high standard technological institute in the Constantine College, at Middlesbrough, which is well situated to meet the needs of the area because it is central and at a point in the river which can be easily crossed.
Finally, may I say that I speak in this matter not just as the Member of Parliament for Cleveland or as a Tees-side Member of Parliament, but as an engineer with some small knowledge of industry. It is a commonplace to argue these days that our national future depends on industrial productivity, and that productivity, in turn, depends on the proper supply of the most highly trained and qualified technologists and engineers of all kinds. If we are to have them, we must have them educated everywhere, not just in some parts of the country, but spread evenly throughout it. Therefore, I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that the claims of Teesside should be looked at as a matter of extreme urgency and that Constantine College be granted its proper status.

12.38 p.m.

Mr. David Jones: This morning, at any rate, there is complete political harmony on Tees-side. Indeed, there is geographical harmony, too. I do not dissent from anything said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) or by the hon. and learned Member for Middlesbrough, West (Mr. Simon) about Constantine College. There is no jealousy on Tees-side about this matter, although in my own constituency, The Hartlepools, there is a very fine technical college which has a long history and has done much good work. However, we are not staking a separate claim for that college this morning.
We feel that Tees-side is a developing area. I ventured to say in the House some weeks ago that there is not as much industrial development in similar geographical territory in this country as there


is on Tees-side at present. Not only are the new industries calling for technicians of the highest order, but one must pay tribute to the owners of the older industries.
The other day I had the privilege, with my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd), to be present at Stockton when a new pipe works was opened by the South Durham Steel and Iron Company. This company had secured an order for a large supply of steel pipes for a contract in Canada, so it undertook the tremendous task of establishing a new works. I think that that can be matched by the large number of other industrialists on Tees-side who are prepared to be up to date in the development of their industries.
I have no doubt that the Parliamentary Secretary will recognise the name Great-ham, and will know that Tees-side and the whole of the hon. Members for Teesside have been trying to press for facilities to develop the airport there, largely because we believe that it is necessary in these days to get people quickly to and from Tees-side. Ships are frequently built on the Tees, which was described by the late Ernest Bevin as the finest river that the country possesses.
We have to bring ships' crews quickly to Tees-side in order that they may sail away the vessels that have been built there. We also have mining in the vicinity of Tees-side, engineering and many other kinds of developments, but if they are to progress and to be manned up with modern technologists an opportunity ought to be afforded for technicians and technologists to be trained on Teesside.
After all, it is no answer to young men who are seeking to get the necessary knowledge to tell them that they must travel 20 or 25 miles there and a similar distance back in order to attend the necessary courses. If we are to encourage the young people in an area such as this, with its diversified industry, we ought to place these facilities at their disposal. I think it was the Prime Minister, who, speaking at Bradford a short time ago, said:
The prizes will not go to the countries with the largest populations. Those with the best systems of education will win.

I suggest that the best systems of education are those that are provided in the vicinity of the places where people live and work. If, at the end of a day's work, young men have to travel 15 or 20 miles to obtain this education and a similar distance home, there will not be the encouragement to young people to attend these courses that one would wish to see.
I therefore conclude by asking the Parliamentary Secretary again to urge his right hon. Friend to have another look at this question. The Minister knows Tees-side. I do not know whether the Parliamentary Secretary does, but I know quite well that his right hon. Friend knows Tees-side and appreciates it, because he came there for other purposes, though we will not argue about that this morning. I ask the hon. Gentleman to urge the Minister to encourage the technicians and industries of Tees-side to do the best they can for the country.

12.42 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education (Mr. Dennis Vosper): I should like to begin, as did the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) by associating with this debate the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd) because it was he who gave notice that this matter would be raised on the Adjournment. I assure the hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. D. Jones) that I shall not in any way upset the political harmony which has been evidenced during this debate.
In giving notice of the debate, I think the right hon. Member for Middlesborough, East referred to the provision of a college for higher technological education on Tees-side, so the first point that I want to make is that Tees-side already has such provision in the shape of the Constantine College, a college of which, as the hon. Members who have spoken have said, the district can be proud, and which has given very good service both to the neighbourhood and to the country. The White Paper on Technical Education does not in any way seek to reduce the standard of this college; indeed, the whole emphasis of this White Paper is that all technical colleges must be further developed.
The right hon. Gentleman said that he hoped I would not regard these matters


as irrelevant to the industrial development of Tees-side. Indeed, I think that they are most relevant. I have some knowledge of Tees-side, because I have in my constituency a number of industries, including Imperial Chemical Industries, Ltd., and I am constantly finding my most promising constituents drafted to Tees-side. As the hon. Member for The Hartlepools has said, my right hon. Friend is even more closely interested—though his interest is personal rather than political—in that area, and he is taking a great interest in this debate. He is only sorry that he cannot actually attend the debate. He most certainly agrees that the achievements of Tees-side in recent years have contributed considerably to the prosperity of the country.
The White Paper, however, mentions for the first time, colleges of advanced technology, and it is this, of course, that hon. Members have in mind. If it is not already clear from the White Paper, and perhaps it is not to some people, a college of advanced technology is envisaged as being one which concentrates on advanced technological courses, and, if anything, the emphasis should be on the word "concentrates." Despite many suggestions to the contrary—not in debates in this House, but in the Press and elsewhere during the last few weeks—no list of colleges of advanced technology is given in the White Paper.
In paragraph 68, to which reference has been made, there are the names of 24 colleges which at present receive a 75 per cent. grant for certain parts of their work, resulting from an earlier decision of the Government to approve and encourage certain courses of advanced work. The Government wish to see the proportion of advanced work in these colleges vigorously increased, so that as many of them as possible—and this should be the answer to the reference by the right hon. Gentleman to London—may develop speedily as colleges of advanced technology.
The White Paper goes on to say, as I think most hon. Members have mentioned, that there may be a few other colleges which may qualify for the 75 per cent. grant, and this, of course, means, although I admit that the White Paper itself does not say so, that other colleges

may become colleges of advanced technology, and that the list of 24 colleges is not exclusive. I fully admit that there has been some difficulty on this point, and I am glad to have the opportunity of clearing it up in advance of the general debate in this House, and to say that the list is not exclusive.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the application of the Constantine College for 75 per cent. grant and to the reason why it did not appear in the White Paper, which is that it was unsuccessful in its application for 75 per cent. grant. The application was made in respect of courses in the science group, and not in mechanical engineering. It was made in 1953, and reasons are not given for the acceptance or rejection of applications, but I think I can say—indeed, it was said at the time—that approval was not given because the volume of advanced work, both full-time and part-time, did not measure up to what was expected in colleges which are recognised for this higher rate of grant. The application was reconsidered in the light of the latest available statistics, which were, I think, for 1952–53, but, as there appeared to be no appreciable increase in the proportion of full time work, this decision could not be reversed. Since that date, at the latter end of 1953, no further application for the college has been received from the local authority.

Mr. Marquand: The hon. Gentleman has talked about the proportion. Does he not take account of the increase in the number of full-time students? After all, it would be possible to get a better proportion simply by reducing the number of students in the lower grades.

Mr. Vosper: Certainly. Of course, the increase in the total volume of work and of advanced work is taken into account and 75 per cent. grant is paid to those colleges or schools which have a high proportion of advanced work. I will, however, take up that point later in my speech.

Mr. Simon: Did my hon. Friend take into account the proportion of Higher National Diplomas obtained by Constantine College students, because that would seem to be a very good test of advanced and whole-time work?

Mr. Vosper: There may be some slight confusion here, because the application was made only in respect of the science courses and not the mechanical engineering courses which my hon. and learned Friend has in mind. I hope we shall not make too much about what happened in the past, but the events just referred to are the only reasons why this college does not feature in paragraph 68 of the White Paper. As I have said, and perhaps should repeat, that list is not exclusive.
During the few years which have elapsed since the application was made there has been a considerable expansion in the work of the college and in the work at advanced level, but I doubt whether, even now, the volume of advanced work has shown an increase fully comparable with the overall increase. I appreciate the point made by the right hon. Gentleman; they could, of course, run down the less advanced work and thereby increase the proportion of the more advanced work. I have that point in mind.
I do not want to weary the House with too many figures, but I would point out that there has been an increase in the total work of the college between 1948–49 and 1955–56 of about 70 per cent., which is a splendid achievement. But during that time the proportion of advanced full-time work increased only from 18 per cent. to 31 per cent. and there was a decrease from 14 per cent. to 11 per cent. in the part-time work. I do not want these figures to be misleading because all the work, including advanced work, has increased and I am merely speaking of the proportion of advanced work. The 75 per cent. grant was introduced particularly for advanced work and in the White Paper we had that proportion especially in mind. Moreover, the advanced work, I think, is still of small proportions at Constantine compared with some other colleges.
My hon. and learned Friend asked me two questions, the first relating to sandwich courses. Sandwich courses are, of course, a very important feature of the development of technological education and the Constantine College is playing an important part in that respect. I do not want to make too much of the point or to dispute his figures but, although the 11 per cent. is correct, there are two

qualifications. First, one of the college's sandwich courses is not an advanced course and, secondly, since those figures were produced there have been quite a number of sandwich courses developed elsewhere in the country, which should be taken into account in considering my right hon. Friend's answer, to which reference has been made. The proportion referred to by my hon. and learned Friend is probably less now than 11 per cent.
My hon. and learned Friend also referred to the Higher National Diploma in mechanical engineering. This is only one course and it was not the subject of the application for the 75 per cent. grant; and there has been a slight reduction of the proportion to 17 or 18 per cent. since that figure was produced. There again, however, the results are very creditable and I do not want to denigrate the work which is being done. This is a consideration which we must bear in mind.
I have so far made it clear that, in the first place, the list of colleges named in the White Paper is not exclusive or final and, secondly, that this college does not feature in the list simply because at the time of the application for the 75 per cent. grant the proportion of advanced work was not sufficient. The purpose of the debate, however, is that hon. Members who have taken part in it are anxious that the cause of this college shall not go by default when we make additions to the list. It is only natural that Teesside, in common with other important areas, should feel that it should have a college of advanced technology.
Perhaps I should say that there is a responsible group of individuals, including many right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House, who have felt all along that there should be an even more limited number of colleges of advanced technology, and we must consider that view when adding to the list in paragraph 68. But, of course, the immense developments on Tees-side are a very important consideration which my right hon. Friend will bear in mind when deciding which additional colleges will be recognised as colleges of advanced technology.
I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members will agree that in addition to local and industrial considerations there


are sometimes even wider regional and national considerations which must be taken into account, as the White Paper makes clear. In considering what will be a very limited number of colleges, regard will be paid not only to the conditions which have been advanced today; we have also to ensure that the limited resources—and I have particularly in mind the teaching staff—are not spread too thinly.
It will not be easy in the initial period to get enough highly qualified teachers for the advanced work, and these, therefore, must be used to the best advantage by building up units which are of a reasonable size and by not trying to provide too many or too varied courses in any particular place. I do not think that anybody will dissent from that view. Physical conditions, the quality of the staff, support from industry and potential student demand must all be taken into account before reaching a decision. There is also another consideration which has not been mentioned in the debate! refer to what has come to be known as the Hives Council for the award of diplomas of technology. These are all considerations which my right hon. Friend will have to have in mind when adding to or subtracting from the list of colleges which have been named. Those in the list have been named only because they receive the 75 per cent. grant at present.
Those are the general considerations which will be taken into account, and it is against this background that the position of Constantine College will be considered. In any such consideration, my right hon. Friend will have the assistance of the report of the full inspection of the college which was carried out at the end of January and which, I hope, will be available to the local authority within a few weeks. I am advised that we are shortly to debate in full the White Paper on Technical Education, and on that occasion my right hon. Friend hopes

to elaborate still further the position of colleges of advanced technology. In addition, there will no doubt be an opportunity for the position of the Constantine College to be discussed between my right hon. Friend's Department, the local authority and the governors.
Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen have advanced their case with clarity and conviction and I am sorry that my reply at this stage cannot be more definite, although I think the reason for that is fully understood. Perhaps I may repeat what I said at the beginning: it is my right hon. Friend's firm view that the Constantine College is doing excellent work and that it would continue to do so even if it were not recognised as a college of advanced technology. It is important, in this respect, to bear in mind paragraph 70 of the White Paper, which makes it clear that the existence of a college of technology will not prevent the development elsewhere of advanced work. There is nothing to stop Constantine College from continuing and developing the advanced work which it is doing at the moment, even if it is not recognised as a college of advanced technology.

Mr. Marquand: It would need more money.

Mr. Vosper: It is clear from the White Paper that every one of the 500 technical colleges in the country needs, and will get, more money during the next few years, even if it is not in the advanced category.
I hope I have made it clear that the door is not shut and that consideration will be given to the inclusion of this college, but that in coming to his decisions my right hon. Friend must consider the wider national interest, to which Tees-side makes a considerable contribution, as well as to those local considerations which have been so well argued today.

TRAFFIC CONGESTION, LONDON

12.59 p.m.

Mr. John Foster: I am grateful for the opportunity of raising a problem which is at the heart of all Londoners. The fact that I was to have the opportunity of addressing the House on the problem of London's traffic congestion was received with enthusiasm by my friends, and many of my colleagues have said, "If only I could get hold of London's traffic for a week I would improve the position." We all feel, when we get annoyed, vexed and frustrated by the congestion in London streets, that on the face of it the congestion could be alleviated, if not eradicated, by certain measures.
I should like, first, to deal with some provisions which would not cost any money and so could not be met by the economic argument that it is very difficult to find extra money for road widening schemes, parking facilities, and so on. It is very important that the two problems of parking and traffic flow should be considered closely together. It is obviously a truism that one depends upon the other. In dealing with the problem of traffic congestion in London, it is important to lay down a rule so that motorists and other users of the highways will know exactly where they stand.
At present, a motorist may be summoned for causing obstruction if his car is standing anywhere for any length of time. The first thing to do is to make the law definite. The first aspect of the problem of parking congestion with which I want to deal is that motorists should know definitely where they are allowed to park and where not. A certain rule should be made. To get order out of chaos, the principle should be to give as wide a latitude as possible. If measures are brought in to keep cars out of London, a great hardship will be caused to a section of the population which depends on its cars during hours of work.
An instance is professional men, estate agents, salesmen, doctors, solicitors, and, maybe, barristers. They need a car to "keep appointments with clients. If we forbid private cars to come into the centre 'of London, and those men have to travel by public transport, there may be an

estate agent who has to go to a housing site, say, in East London and then back to his office for ten minutes and then on to another housing site in Norwood and then from Norwood to Richmond. We must not forget that sort of problem when people write to the newspapers and say that it is disgraceful that cars should come to the middle of London and that they should be banned. That would create great diffi;culties for a man who has to park his car in, say, East Ham, and who has a business at Notting Hill, Stanmore, or some other part of London.
There should be strict rules against the motorist once he has broken the parking laws, but there should be different degrees of severity. I believe that there is an offence called "dangerous parking" and it should be enforced more strictly. We have all seen somebody so completely careless of the rights of other road users that he has parked his car dangerously on a corner, where it is liable to cause an accident. Yet, as far as I know, prosecutions for this offence, if it does exist, are very rare.
The next category would be gross obstruction, where the parking does not cause actual danger, but where it is extremely thoughtless of other road users. The third kind would be disciplinary parking, where a man has broken a rule of parking by being too near an intersection, but where, if discipline were enforced, it would not be nearly as serious. I have referred to parking within so many feet of an intersection, because, as far as I know, there is no general rule in England about that parking, as there ought to be. There should be a rule to prevent parking within so many feet of a crossroads.
When a driver comes out of a side street where there is parking right up to the corner, he cannot tell what traffic is coming from his right side until he gets right into the street, and if his car has a bonnet of any length he is obviously hazarding traffic coming towards him and hazarding himself. There is nothing he can do, except poke out his nose at very slow speed. We should follow the Canadian example of forbidding parking within so many feet of an intersection. An offence against that rule might constitute dangerous parking, gross obstruction, or disciplinary parking, depending on the circumstances of the offence.
Then there is the problem of providing more parking room on the streets. In most countries that I know parking on the pavements is allowed. Sometimes there is room on the pavement to park cars completely on the pavement, as in the Avenue des Champs Elysées, in Paris. Sometimes there is room to park a car only partly on the pavement, as in certain streets in The Hague. The Dutch have a very convenient method of marking out the pavement on which a car may be parked to show how much of the car is permitted on the pavement. Sometimes the car is parked with its two front wheels on the pavement, and at other times it is the side of the car and so a longer piece is marked out.
In many streets in London today there is unofficial parking on the pavements, especially in very narrow streets where it is essential for vans to stop. We could go out now and see hundreds of cars parked on the pavements—quite rightly—but like the law of obstruction, everybody who puts the wheels of his vehicle on the pavement is committing an offence. That is a very undesirable state of affairs.
I understand that the Minister does not propose to stop people parking at night where it is safe to do so. However, I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the rules about parking without lights at night. As I understand the law, a man can park his car without lights where there is street lighting, but not on a bus route and not in the provinces. That does not seem to make sense. In all other civilised countries, if there is street lighting, parking without lights is permitted. Whether or not it is a bus route makes no difference because bus drivers are careful, and in any towns with street lighting cars are visible to them. There may be some conflict in common law about unallowed obstruction, but I assume that the Ministry's legal advisers have got over that difficulty. To prevent that kind of parking in the provinces seems to be carrying local autonomy far too far, because traffic is a national problem.
If we had those simple rules about parking, we could allow parking in every place, irrespective of outside whose front door it was. We could make it absolutely clear where parking was allowed, because it would be allowed everywhere, except where prohibited by signs. My hon.

Friend should ask the London police not to put "no parking" signs in the road. They take up almost as much room as a car and merely diminish the flow of traffic. It is a first essential of a "no parking" sign that it should be on the pavement and not on the road blocking traffic.
Outside places like embassies, and where goods vehicles are loading and unloading. we should follow the Canadian system and have a series of posts, authorised by the Police Commissioner of the Metropolis, which would allow the space to be kept free of parking. I do not propose that people should be able to buy those spaces, but where it is obviously essential that a place should be kept free where parking is otherwise allowed, a couple of posts on the pavement would prevent parking.
I am very much in favour of parking meters. Experience in Canada and America and in other places has shown that they are well worth while. To avoid excessive control and the time of the police being too much occupied, I would suggest to my hon. Friend that there should not be a time limit for parking meters if the requisite coin has been put in afterwards. One of the objections raised to parking meters is that if there is only an hour's parking, a man comes out from his office and puts in another coin. That needs tremendous control by the police who mark time and have the curious system of waiting for the driver to return, with consequent tremendous waste of time for the police. When the Minister introduces parking meters, he should have a rule that if the meter is not on red—that is. if the coin is still operating the time—the car should be regarded as lawfully parked.
That brings me again to the question of the waste of time of the police. It is a well-known device that when one sees one's car watched by a policeman one waits until the middle of the night, because he is not going to watch it all night, and hopes that he will not ask the L.C.C. to trace one's name from the number of the car so that the police can chase one up at home. This also leads to difficulties about the principle of particulars of licences, and so on.
I would suggest that a system such as exists in Canada should be instituted in


this country. The parking system there works very simply. A ticket is put on the windscreen and the owner is responsible. If he lends the car to a member of his family or a friend who takes no notice of the time, then the owner has to sort out with his friend who is responsible. That works very well there, and if introduced in this country would save the police an enormous amount of time.
It is all part of a package deal that the motorist must know that in a particular position he is entitled to park. In certain places there will have to be a restriction of time, although I am personally not so much in favour of this time restriction for the reason, which has been found in Canada and America, that it is very difficult to enforce a time restriction. Therefore, my personal opinion is not so much against the man who comes into London and leaves his car in a street all day. I can see that that is a debatable matter, but it does not affect the main lines of my argument.
One of the most important rules is that the police should be allowed to tow away cars which are infringing the parking regulations in a serious manner. There again, we can save the time of the police. There is no question of a fine, a summons or wasted time in finding out the particulars. The car is towed away to a pound, and the driver pays his £5 for taking it out of the pound. He is automatically guilty because if he had been in the car it could not have been towed away. He has no defence. In rare cases it may be said that he had a fit and was taken into a nearby shop, but I think that the police should have discretion to deal with these rare cases.
Even then, he would be technically guilty. The car is towed away and the police say, "No offence; we are not summoning you. Here is the car—pay £5 and you get the car back." This should only be enforced where it is absolutely essential that the streets should be kept clear. I understand that towing away provisions are being made for the police, but I regard this as part of the whole scheme for keeping the streets comparatively clear. Experience down-town in Los Angeles and San Francisco is that if a car is towed away from a street, the street is cleared like magic. It should be enforced only where it is absolutely

essential that the street should be kept clear.
I have said this about the parking provisions in order to see what the effect of my suggestions would be. I think that they would make parking more orderly. It would be definite and motorists would know exactly where they were. I would beg the Ministry of Transport not to start off with too sweeping an idea of getting the traffic off the streets. What I am going to say about the flow of traffic will do very much to alleviate congestion. A great deal of latitude could be given to parking and it is better to tighten it up gradually than to bring in Draconian measures which might cause hardship to some sections of the community.
The important thing in London is to make all but a few streets one-way streets. All of us have had experience of quite unimportant streets where it is desirable that people should be allowed to park their cars on both sides of the street, but which are so narrow that only one line of traffic can go down the middle. There is often an obstruction in the middle of the street and sometimes traffic coming in from both ends. Tufton Street, in Westminster, is not used very much, but it gets blocked the moment two cars approach from opposite ends because it is only wide enough for cars to be parked on one side, leaving a single lane for traffic. It is essential that it should be a one-way street.
On one day I counted 150 streets in London which, in my view, ought to be one-way streets. Smith Square is another place which gets easily blocked, and it is very fully parked. I believe that if the Minister looked at Smith Square he would merely say, "Look how blocked it is. We are going to have parking on one side or the other instead of cluttering up the whole square." The reform I have suggested would do a great deal to relieve traffic congestion in London. It would be an enormous help if all the streets in London except the main ones were made one-way streets.
The problem of the main streets is a technical one. I do not know how far it is possible to make Oxford Street and Piccadilly one-way streets. There is the difficulty of bus stops. It is obviously a very difficult problem and I have not the knowledge, experience or capability of discussing it in detail. I do emphasise


the importance of turning as many streets as possible into one-way streets.
There are various other traffic rules. It is the experience of other countries that certain concessions to our present rules and certain disciplinary provisions are essential. I think that it would make a tremendous difference to London traffic if we followed the North American and Canadian example of making the blocking of intersections an offence. How often have we seen in London an intersection where one cannot get across? Cars tend to shift to the middle of the crossroad and try to cross on the green light even though the exit for the crossing is blocked. When the lights change, traffic from the other direction cannot cross because other traffic is still on the crossing. The whole thing is jammed.
It is an offence in North America to block an intersection. It is an offence for anyone to cross over a crossroad unless he can see his way clear. It is a matter of thoughtfulness and self-discipline. One notices here that a minority of drivers are unselfish enough and imaginative enough to see that if they cross in certain circumstances they would be harming other people, and they leave the cross section clear, but these drivers are in the minority. On the North American continent this is done automatically.
Another rule which would be beneficial would be to forbid parking across streets. It is not allowed in other countries. This holds up the traffic. It is dangerous when people drive out from the pavements and have to meet traffic on the wrong side of the road.
There are various other rules which I submit to the Minister of Transport for consideration, such as the right to filter on a red light not only to the left, but also to the right if it is a one-way street. With a red light, one can always allow filtering to the left unless there is heavy traffic congestion, and filtering to the right might also be allowed in the circumstances I have mentioned. In order to facilitate the flow of traffic in London we should also have extra policemen at special bottlenecks. St. Giles' Circus is an example, and also Parliament Square, on occasions. When I came in this morning, Parliament Square was jammed because the traffic from Victoria Street was so heavy that it had cluttered up

the traffic from the Embankment. It is necessary to employ special policemen at these points at certain times. I know that there is a shortage of police, but time could be saved if my other suggestions were adopted, because police would no longer have to wait about to take particulars of offending motorists.
Special traffic police could be put on at certain times, as they are when an emergency arises or when a special festival is taking place. One very often notices that when the traffic is heaviest in London it goes faster than usual, because all the police are on their toes, trying to expedite its progress. One sometimes thinks, "This is a day when traffic will be seized up," instead of which one finds that it is flowing much better than usual.
Police should be more inclined to work against the lights where the traffic requires them to do so. I very often notice, when a policeman is standing at the top of St. James's Street—it may be that he is on his beat and is not a traffic policeman—that he does nothing to clear the traffic jam which has occurred because the lights are working against the flow of traffic. There may be a rule that a man on the beat cannot go into the middle of the road to clear a traffic jam, but that has happened three times in the last few weeks at that point. When there is a traffic jam in Paris the policemen get on with the job of waving people on against the lights if necessary, using their imagination.
A surprising thing is that where traffic police are regularly used, the traffic seems to run less smoothly than at those places where traffic lights operate. The reason for that is that the lights work absolutely automatically, at fixed intervals of time, whereas a policeman always tries to get the last fellow across. The whole secret of traffic control is to hold the traffic up in one direction when a sufficient volume has accumulated in the crossing direction. The policeman very often waves on a fellow who is 100 yards down the road, before letting the other traffic across. Traffic policemen should be trained to act automatically, like the lights. A policeman who changed his arm signals quickly, like the lights, would be even better than lights. When we are held up at a crossing which is not usually troublesome we often assume that the lights have failed.


and that the police have been put on to control the traffic—and usually, when we arrive at the crossing, we find that a policeman is on duty, and that he is waving the last few people across, as usual.
I am grateful for this opportunity of raising this question which my hon. Friend's Department is now working on. I regret that the Minister of Transport has set up a Departmental committee to study matters which seem to me to have been obvious for the last 30 years. The things which I have suggested should be put into effect before the committee reports. I have held office in the Government, and I know the way in which it is said, "This matter is under consideration. We have a committee on it. Let us wait until it reports." In traffic matters, however, we have always been behind technical advance, lessons which we should have learnt from other countries, and common sense. Many of the suggestions which I have made should be implemented immediately.
I hope that this Departmental committee will be flexible in its outlook, and quite ruthless about advocating changes in the law or the use of such things as parking meters and the issuing of tickets by the police, even though they may raise a certain amount of opposition from certain sections of the community. It is a very important problem, and any Minister of Transport who tackles it resolutely and with confidence will earn the thanks of the whole community in London.

1.25 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Marcus Lipton: The House will be indebted to the hon. and learned Member for Northwich (Mr. J. Foster) for the very good use he has made of this opportunity provided to him in raising the subject of traffic congestion in London. It may sound platitudinous to say so, but the cause of traffic congestion in London is the fact that too many cars and vehicles of various kinds are coming into a small area. In those circumstances, we have to consider what kind of traffic priority should be given.
A little while ago the head of London Transport suggested that private cars should keep out of London. He was severely criticised for saying so. A few

weeks ago I suggested that it might be necessary to ban the use of private cars in London during rush hours, and I also encountered a certain amount of criticism. I know that this is a very revolutionary suggestion, and that we must use every other possible method to prevent this suggestion ever becoming a necessity.
This business of keeping private cars out of Central London is being tackled by the parties concerned. Only yesterday it was announced that bigger 'car parks are now being provided at various tube stations in the outer suburbs of London. They will provide parking space for another 650 cars. That is a contribution to the problem, but when we relate 650 cars to the total number of private cars coming into London each day we realise that it is really only a very small one. Nevertheless, it is a step in the right direction.
If we have to decide what kind of traffic priorities should be given, I think that we must inevitably conclude that we must give priority to the needs of those people who use London buses to go to and from their work.

Mr. Foster: What about doctors?

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: About 10 million people a day use London buses. A private car occupies about eighty square feet of road space and carries, at the most, four passengers, whereas a bus, which occupies 195 square feet, can carry 61 passengers. If we have to choose between one section of the community and another, we must seek to create a situation in which buses can move and enable people to get to and from their work. London Transport has stated that the outer London bus services can be planned to operate at an average speed of twelve miles an hour, but that in Central London the speed has to be reduced to 7½ miles an hour. That means that the efficiency of the bus as a means of public transport is halved when it reaches the central area.
In those circumstances, we are justified in asking private motorists to leave their cars, whenever possible, at one of the outer London underground stations, and to rely upon public transport for entering the London area itself, especially during the rush hours, when London Transport has the vast problem of moving a huge mass of people within a limited time.
I know that the problem can be alleviated to a certain extent by staggering, but people do not like being pushed about more than is absolutely necessary. Certain trades, industries and shops may be accustomed to working from a certain time in the morning until a certain time at night, and the point of view of the workers has to be considered. I hope that the time will never be reached when the authorities have to consider the banning of private cars from Central London altogether. Anything that we can do to persuade the private car user not to come into London ought to be encouraged.
That would enable people to get to and from their work with the least possible inconvenience. It is not unreasonable to suggest that the greatest happiness of the greatest number ought to be the principle. If that test is applied, we shall need a campaign to persuade private-car owners to keep out of London, particularly during rush hours, and that will be to the advantage of the public as a whole.

1.31 p.m.

Mr. J. Langford-Holt: There are four methods by which the Ministry and the Government can deal with this traffic problem. The first is major road construction, the second minor alteration, the third planning action, and the fourth administrative action.
I will not say anything about major road construction, because that is somewhat outside our purview at the moment. On the second point, I have hardly seen one parking building in London such as I have seen in Germany and other parts of the world since the war. These are skeleton buildings built with the sole purpose of parking vehicles.
What has happened to the Hyde Park boulevard scheme? When the present Minister of Pensions was Minister of Transport, he told me that the Royal Fine Art Commission were considering the scheme. They have been doing so for many months. May I ask when they will reach a conclusion? While we are waiting for the result, cannot we get a one-way system in the park by enlarging its exits and entrances?
Virtually all the pavements in London are constructed for horse-drawn traffic, because they come out to a point at

corners. This means that a ten-foot pavement reaches sixteen feet width at the point. The result is that cars, especially large cars, have to go right out to the middle of the road, often just missing an island, in order to turn the corner, instead of being able to drive round. The Minister may say that my suggestion would be bad for pedestrians; in that case we must put a small railing on the corner. We do not want pedestrians jumping off the corners of pavements. A railing would guide them to the zebra crossing, usually only a short distance away.
Could we not experiment with terracing of corner premises? It has been done at the Westbury Hotel at the bottom of Conduit Street. The pavement was withdrawn considerably merely by making terracing. We can often do that at corners so that abrupt, sharp corners can be avoided.
On the planning angle, I am sorry to say that, however hard one tries, one never finds who is responsible for what happens in transport matters. I tried to do so on an Adjournment debate, and the only way I could make the Home Office reply was to raise the subject of who enforced traffic regulations. The reply was that it was the Metropolitan Police. It is not the Ministry of Transport, the town planning authority or the local authority. It is time the Minister of Transport decided who is ultimately to give orders and take the responsibility.
Is the Ministry of Transport informing itself whether there are parking places underneath the large blocks of offices now going up in many places in this country? No large block, whether of offices, warehouses or flats, should go up without parking space underneath to accommodate the vehicles, goods or cars that will come to the building. These blocks should be rounded off at corners and taken back, but many of them are being built on exactly the same sites as the previous buildings of 50 or 60 years ago.
On the subject of parking in the middle of London, I would point out that at the Westbury Hotel, for example, there is no parking accommodation except a space outside the front door. The same is true in Arlington Street, where a large building is going up next to the office of the


National Coal Board. Will there be parking accommodation there? Large blocks of buildings are going up in Fen-church Street, in the centre of the City of London; will they have parking space? One cannot help asking these questions, because as the result of all this building we may have many more cars bunching up in the City of London.
The Ministry of Transport has to make up its mind whether to use Hyde Park or not. At the moment there is an astonishing situation. I use Hyde Park three or four times a day, going to and from Westminster. It is appalling even to the extent of being a menace. Going in from Hyde Park Corner one cannot see the policeman standing just inside the gate, and two or three times during the past year I have nearly knocked him over. I must tell my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary that I shall not accept responsibility if I do so, because the policeman is quite invisible.
It is astonishing for how long these things are allowed to happen. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northwich (Mr. J. Foster) mentioned the jamming at corners. About four years ago I went to the Ministry of Transport and made a suggestion about that and was almost laughed at. I was told, "It is quite impossible. It would not work here." We are always told that a suggestion will not work, but many suggestions could work. What we have to do is to decide who is responsible and then to get on with the job.

1.38 p.m.

Mr. Ernest Davies: The hon. and learned Member for Northwich (Mr. J. Foster) put forward a large number of palliatives to deal with the traffic congestion in London, and with most of them I do not think that hon. Members will disagree. But he did not attempt to give a final answer to the problem, which is, of course, the construction of new roads and major improvements. Unfortunately, the Government have not found it possible to undertake them up to the present time.
Traffic conditions in London are deteriorating so fast that unless bold, constructive measures are taken to stop or curb the private motorist from obstructing public transport we shall reach the stage where the public service will be in danger.

Traffic will be reduced to such a slow speed that the provision of an efficient public service will no longer be possible.
Surface traffic is already reduced frequently to a mere crawl. I have great fears about the effect of this upon London Transport because it is clear that the slower the traffic flows the more costly it is to operate the public service. If traffic is reduced in volume, travellers desert public transport for private transport, whereupon the financial position of the public service becomes very difficult.
My own approach would be somewhat different from that of the hon. and learned Member, who was speaking largely in the interests of the private motorists and wished to protect them. Too little attention is paid to the protection of the public service. The private motorist may have to be sacrificed to some extent in order that the public service may be preserved. I suggest that because every hon. Member has said that the greatest obstacle to the free flow of traffic is the excessive piling up of cars in the streets of London.
The provision of more parking places is no answer, because the motorist will come into the centre of London and park his car as long as he is able to find parking space. The key to the problem is the enforcement of the parking restrictions. At present, however many restrictions are imposed on parking, however many new regulations are made and new unilateral streets created, in a matter of days or weeks they are ignored by the motoring public. It is a common sight to see motor cars parked close to police signs stating "no parking," and to see them on the wrong side of unilateral streets.
The only deterrent to illegal parking is strict enforcement. I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. and learned Gentleman for Northwich that the ticket system as used in America and Canada is the only way by which there can be strict enforcement.

Mr. J. Foster: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that parking abuses would only impede public transport on bus routes?

Mr. Davies: It is not quite as simple as that, because if side streets are already cluttered up with parked vehicles, private vehicles will use the main highways which are used by public services.
The ticket system, with the assurance of enforcement that it provides, is the only way in which the parking problem can be overcome. As long as the parker feels that he can get away with leaving his vehicle indefinitely—and, as has been said, avoiding the police by waiting until they have left the beat—there will be this excessive parking. Once he is aware of the likelihood that he will be summoned for parking where he is not supposed to park that will be sufficient deterrent to make it worth while for the Government to impose strict parking restrictions.
The parking meter which is to be introduced is not the answer to the parking problem. In itself, it is no solution, but it is an asset inasmuch as it makes enforcement easier. The use of the parking meter as a measure of time is very simple indeed. Once the parking meter shows that the permitted time has been exceeded the police can easily summon the owner of the car. The parking meter should be combined with the ticket system.
I think that the private motorist is endangering his own future and his own welfare by ignoring the regulations which are there for his own protection. Those regulations are imposed in order to assist the free flow of traffic through London. By ignoring them, the private motorist will bring upon himself restrictions of a far severer nature.
If the parking problem is not overcome there will inevitably have to be a banning of private motors from certain streets of Central London at certain times. That must be avoided, if possible, but if it is found necessary to introduce such a plan it will be the private motorist's own fault for refusing to observe the law, as he is doing now. Again, strict enforcement is the answer—not only the suffering of a fine but the knowledge of the motorist that if he does not observe the law the consequences will adversely affect his own future freedom as a private motorist.
I know that the Parliamentary Secretary wishes to reply and I do not wish to encroach upon the time of other hon. Members who have Adjournment debates today, so I would just add that there are a number of other aids to improving the free flow of traffic in London. Some have been mentioned already. Reference has been made to the essential elimina-

tion of a very large number of right-hand turns.
There is also the matter of intersections. The number of times we motorists, driving here to Westminster, for instance, are held up at intersections simply because the car in front of us is waiting to turn right is simply ridiculous. It is always happening and could easily be overcome by a little intelligent assessment as to where the right-hand turns should be eliminated and traffic diverted.
Another palliative is to allow a greater amount of filtering at lights for the left-hand turns. This is permitted in Trafalgar Square and a few other places, and there should be a great increase in permitted filtering. Another improvement would be better direction of traffic at Hyde Park Corner going towards Piccadilly—a clear direction as to the lane in which traffic should get into order to go in its desired direction.
It is regrettable that for a debate on such an important subject we should have such a short time. A number of suggestions have been put forward which I feel sure the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will take into account, but I suggest that none of them provides a final answer to this tremendous problem which, so far, has proved intractable. The Government have to revise their ideas about traffic in London. The only answer is to engage in bold and imaginative measures such as have been pursued in Continental cities—major construction works, flyovers, under-passes and the like. In spite of our financial situation, they can be afforded, because we cannot afford to allow the traffic to pile up as it is doing at present.

1.47 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Hugh Molson): There have been a number of very interesting and practical suggestions made during the course of this debate. I shall try to deal with them all before I sit down, but if I cannot do so I promise that I will go carefully over all the suggestions that have been made and will write to my hon. Friends and to hon. Gentlemen opposite about them.
I think that I should begin by dealing with the matter on rather broader and more general lines. The Government look forward to the time when it will


be possible to carry out large measures of road construction in London. We have already authorised large-scale works at Notting Hill Gate, which is one of the worst bottlenecks. I must, however, say to the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) that to make it possible for everyone who comes into London to work to travel in his own car in the morning and to return in the evening is something which we can never attain. Even something less than that would involve the demolition and reconstruction of a very large part of London. I must say that I think it will always be necessary to take measures to discourage many of those who would like to use their private cars for coming into London.
I am glad that there was a desire on both sides to avoid a ban on private cars coming into the centre of London. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Sir W. Wakefield) wrote to the Press the other day and advocated something of that kind. I hope that the proposals which my right hon. Friend made on 21st March will prevent it from ever becoming necessary. His proposals have been criticised on the ground that they are going to impose further heavy charges upon motorists. The Conservative Government are not afraid of saying that they believe in the price mechanism and that they intend to apply it to parking in London. We do not admit that a motorist has any greater right to use the Queen's highway for the permanent accommodation of his vehicle than someone who chooses to put up a stall there and occupy it without paying any rent for it.
There was a cartoon in one of the daily papers the other day of someone saying, "We can afford to buy a car but we cannot afford to park it." I see no reason why anyone should expect to own and use a car and certainly to bring it into London who cannot afford to find a place for it. I suppose that before the motor car age many people could have afforded to buy a horse and cart if the horse did not need a stable and the carriage did not need a coach house. I maintain that those who wish to use cars, and especially to bring them into London, must be prepared to pay a proper economic rent for the amount of space that their vehicle occupies.
My hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury (Mr. Langford-Holt) referred to the fact that very little off-the-street parking accommodation has been provided in London since the war. That is very natural. So long as people can park free on the highway, there is no inducement to them to use garages or even the car parks which exist at the present time. In preparation for this debate I went from the Ministry yesterday to visit some car parks. I am bound to say that when I started to look for car parks in London and saw the state of the streets I was reminded—I hope that no exception will be taken to this story—of the lady who went to the Tower of London and said to a member of the garrison there, "Which part of this is the Bloody Tower?" The answer was "The whole of it."
The sight of the streets of London is extraordinary, but when I went to some of these car parks, including some where no charge is made for parking, they were not full between 11 o'clock and 1 o'clock. Therefore, the only way in which it will be possible to induce private enterprise or local authorities to provide additional accommodation for long-term parkers is to prevent under-cutting by parking for the whole day free on the streets.
I want to make it quite plain that the Government have no intention whatsoever of subsidising off-the-street car parks. At a time when we are reducing subsidies for food and houses, it would be difficult to justify subsidising car parks for those people who choose to come to London and leave their cars here. Therefore, it is necessary that the motorists shall provide the money for the accommodation of their cars, and by means of the parking meters and, it may be, of the provision of parking places with attendants where a charge will be made, the money will accumulate and can be used for this purpose. As the House is aware, under the Road Traffic Bill the whole of the proceeds of the parking meters will be used for that purpose.
While I am referring to the Road Traffic Bill, I should like to say that that Measure when on the Statute Book will deal with two of the most valuable points that were raised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northwich (Mr. J. Foster). It is one of the anomalies of the law that in the Metropolitan area it is


not possible for the police to take steps against offenders against parking regulations without waiting until the driver comes back. Under that Bill it will be possible for the police to take the number of the car and the registered owner of the car will be held responsible for it unless he can show that someone else was responsible for the offence.

Mr. Ernest Davies: Does that imply the use of the ticket system to which reference has been made? Will the police be able to leave a ticket on the car as the equivalent of a summons?

Mr. Molson: No. I think the Home Office has already made a statement to the effect that it is the intention of the Government to introduce legislation to give effect to the recommendations of the Sharpe Committee on these offences. It will enable a person who pleads guilty to an offence of that kind to be convicted without the need for the attendance of policemen in court. I understand that the ticket system is, in fact, a fining system which works without the procedure of the courts. The Committee advised against that and the Government are not prepared to adopt it at present. The reason why it has been so difficult for the police to enforce the regulations that exist is this unfortunate anomaly in the law which I have mentioned and which will be rectified by the Road Traffic Bill.
Reference was also made to the desirability of the police being able to tow away vehicles which are causing obstruction. That also is provided for in the Bill, in Clause 5. Under the law as it is at present they may only tow away cars that have been abandoned or are dangerously placed. Under the Bill they will be able to do the same to those which create obstruction.
I entirely agree with much that has been said about the inconsiderate driving which is largely responsible for much of the traffic delay. I believe that with an increase in consideration and courtesy there could be a very great improvement in its flow. If we could deal with the problem of the long-term parked car there would be an even greater improvement. We wish to treat fairly all those who use the highway. I have made it plain that in the proposals of my right hon. Friend we believe that the private motorist,

although he will have to accept further burdens of payment and of restriction, will also obtain that certainty of where he can park which my hon. and learned Friend advocated.
I wholly accept also what has been said about the desirability of speeding up public transport. If the speed of buses could be increased by one mile an hour the saving to the London Transport Executive would be £2 million a year.
I think I can conclude from what has been said in this debate that the House as a whole is broadly sympathetic to the proposals that were put forward on 21st March by my right hon. Friend. We do not claim in any way that they are a final solution to the problem, and I am sure that he would wish me to thank all hon. Members on both sides of the House who have contributed to this debate for the constructive and helpful speeches that they have made.

ST. GEORGE-IN-THE-EAST HOSPITAL, STEPNEY

2.0 p.m.

Mr. Walter Edwards: We have been dealing with a London transport problem, and I am about to raise a matter which I think concerns the health of the people in a particular part of London. A short time ago the North-East Metropolitan Regional Hospital Board made an announcement that it would recommend to the Minister the closing of St. George-in-the-East Hospital which now serves a district of London. The board made that announcement before even giving the local authority the chance to consider its views. I can assure the Parliamentary Secretary that when this announcement was read in the Press by people living in Wapping and Shadwell it gave them the biggest shock they have had even since the beginning of the war.
This hospital has been there for well over fifty years; I do not know exactly how long, but certainly longer than I have been on this earth. Yet an announcement has been made by the regional board that the hospital which has been serving the people in that area for so long is to be closed. This week I asked the Minister a Question to find out the names of the people who comprise the regional board. I am certain that it will


be accepted that very few of these people know the particular situation in Wapping and Shadwell and its relationship with St. George-in-the-East Hospital. Most of them probably do not know that Wapping and Shadwell form more or less an island and that the bridges which allow ships and barges to go in and out of London Docks are on the fringe of Wapping and Shadwell and of St. George-in-the-East Hospital.
Apart from the fact that this is a service which we had even in the Poor Law days, even before we paid National Health Service contributions, the decision to close this hospital is particularly regrettable. The people face a difficult situation with regard to exits and entrances, even for ambulances, and the effect of closing the hospital will be that the people in this part of London will have to suffer a greater inconvenience in their hospital service than anybody else in London.
I do not know what made the regional board reach this decision, but I believe that one reason given was the falling population in the area. I wonder whether the board has even been informed by its advisers that before the war, when the population of Stepney was about 200,000, there were four hospitals in the area; and that one of them, St. Peter's Hospital, was bombed during the war and has never been used since. I do not know whether the board is aware that London Hospital, which is one of the remaining hospitals in Stepney, admits very few Stepney people; most of the patients there come from well outside Stepney. In any case, people have to wait for months and months before they are admitted.
Thus, of the four hospitals which we had before the war, St. Peter's is out and London Hospital cannot provide services for the people of Stepney. That leaves us with the Mile End Hospital, St. George-in-the-East Hospital and the London Jewish Hospital. The London Jewish Hospital is more or less a specialist hospital.
When we bring it down to the hospitals now providing services for the people of Stepney, we see that if St. George-in-the-East is closed we shall be left with one hospital, compared with four before the

war. I cannot understand why the regional board is doing this or why the Stepney Hospital Management Committee has agreed to it, although I must tell the hon. Lady that when this matter was discussed in the council chamber at the last meeting of the Stepney Borough Council, the chairman of the House Committee of St. George-in-the-East Hospital, who is also a member of the hospital management committee, stated quite definitely that the hospital management committee was forced to accept the decision of the regional board. That is contained in a letter which the hon. Lady may have in her possession and which was sent to the Minister of Health by the town clerk of Stepney.
The regional board has not waited until the Minister has heard the representations from other bodies which he has told me in a letter he is prepared to hear before he makes a decision. Even more than this, the board has let its determination to close the hospital be known all round London. The effect is that the staff are very worried and many of them, rather than be pushed out later, are looking for places elsewhere. That may suit the places elsewhere and may fill vacancies elsewhere, but it will take away a service which is absolutely necessary for the residents of Wapping and Shadwell. In addition, the chairman of the hospital management committee sent out a circular to all members of the staff of the hospital saying that the hospital is due to close some time in July and that the committee will do whatever it can to find other appointments for them.
I had a letter from the Minister in which he told me that no decision has been taken about closing the hospital. I understand that admittance to the hospital is at the moment being refused to the medical staff in anticipation of its closing. The Minister said in a letter dated 26th March that no decision has been taken. He had asked the regional hospital board to consult the other authorities responsible for providing health services in the area and until he knew their views he would not come to a decision. By now the Minister ought to have the view of the health authorities in the area. Stepney Borough Council has decided unanimously to oppose the proposal to close the hospital and has done so in the strongest terms. In case the


Ministry has not yet been notified, I can inform the hon. Lady that Division No. 5 of London County Council, which deals with health services in the area, has also passed a resolution opposing the proposal.
I read in the Evening Standard the night before last that a number of London doctors have met. They are also opposing the closing of this hospital and asking for a deputation to be received. I live in the area and I am an out-patient of St. George-in-the-East receiving treatment for a knee injury. I can assure the hon. Lady that nothing has created more feeling among the people in the area than this proposal. They are all working-class people.
The regional board deliberately prevented the house committee of the hospital from expressing views until a decision had been taken. It was after the borough council met and expressed its views that the house committee was given an opportunity to express its view. We hear a lot about petitions. I have with me a number of petition forms signed by people living and working in the area. Ninety per cent. of those who signed the forms live in the area and no doubt work in the docks. Possibly 10 per cent. work in the industry but live out of the area.
This hospital not only serves the needs of residents of Shadwell, Wapping and St. Georges, but also deals with casualty cases from the docks and wharfs. I have letters from trade union branches and from wharfingers, all expressing concern about the service being taken from the people in this part of London. We are not asking for anything new but for a service to be retained.
Considerable sums of money have been spent by London County Council and the National Health Service, yet the regional board, most of whose members do not know conditions in the area, has made this preposterous recommendation. The petition contains about 1,500 names and addresses, which I hope to give to the officials of the Ministry after this discussion. The names are all genuine names of people who are perturbed about their health and the health of their children. Once the hospital closes, if ever it does, it will become a derelict building, to the shame of the National Health Service.
I really cannot understand the decision. Plenty of use could be made of the hospital if the regional board and the

management committee liked to put their heads together. It is said that nurses cannot be obtained, but if we closed all hospitals of the country, as they are short found, we would close almost half the hospitals of the country as they are short of nursing staff. The important thing I emphasise is that if the hospital is allowed to close it will be made terribly inconvenient for people who live in the area and have been using the hospital who will have to go to other hospitals.
I have a knee injury which makes it very difficult to get up and down stairs. If I were not able to go to St. George-in-the-East Hospital, I should have to go down one of the oldest underground stations, Wapping Station, crawl down the stairs, get into a train, go upstairs again at Whitechapel Station and then cross a busy road to Mile End Hospital for treatment every morning. Mine is only a minor case compared with dozens of cases I see there every morning. The answer may be that patients can travel in ambulances, but it is not everyone who wants to travel in an ambulance.
The area is bordered by swing bridges owned by the Port of London Authority. Before the war a general practitioner was living in the area. Today there is no general practitioner in the area because his premises were bombed and have never been replaced. If a dock worker or someone at home meets with an accident there is not even a clinic to which he may go unless he crosses two main roads to get to Mile End Hospital.
People have to suffer this inconvenience, yet there is this hospital to which they could go. I assure the hon. Lady that the people of the area love the hospital. It is well run and everyone is perfectly happy about it. It would be a tragedy if at any time it were decided to close the hospital. No doubt the hon. Lady knows that Stepney Borough Council has suggested that there should be an inquiry before a decision is taken. My view is that there is not even the necessity for an inquiry. The hospital can be made to work and to continue to give the splendid service it is at present giving, provided the regional board goes into the matter in a proper way.
I beg the hon. Lady to take all these things into consideration, to consult the Minister, and make certain that whatever else happens under the National Health


scheme no one—whether in Wapping, Shadwell, Bayswater, or Mayfair—shall have to suffer inconvenience as a result of a decision made by her right hon. Friend and by the regional board.

2.19 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Patricia Hornsby-Smith): The hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Walter Edwards) has put a very forceful case on this question, but I think that he has been less than just to the regional hospital board. The board has behaved quite constitutionally in this matter. It is the authority responsible for planning the whole of the hospital services within its area. Although the hon. Member laid the blame all on the side of the regional board, the fact remains that the hospital management committee, whatever may have been said in another committee, has voted and recommended to the board that this hospital should be closed.
It is quite correct to say that the house committee should not have come into the question at that stage, because it is not the executive body responsible for the day-to-day running of hospitals in the group. Nothing can take away the executive responsibility from the hospital management committee. Therefore, any representations to the board would naturally come from the hospital management committee and not from the house committee.
My right hon. Friend is aware of the board's suggestion that the St. George-in-the-East Hospital should close. To give full and proper consideration to the views of all interested parties, my right hon. Friend asked the board to seek the views of the London County Council, the London Executive Council and the Stepney Borough Council. When all those views have been received, my right hon. Friend will come to his decision. Meanwhile, although the hon. Member has freedom to put all his case as he would wish, it would clearly be improper for me to discuss the merits of the proposal, which will be a matter for the decision of my right hon. Friend. It is, however, fair that I should make a few comments on some of the published and known facts and some of the points which have already been made public by the regional hospital board.
The regional hospital board, having the responsibility for services in the area, quite properly published a notice of its intentions, knowing that the proposal it was putting forward would have finally to be decided upon by the Minister. Although the hon. Member said that nobody else was consulted, I should in fairness point out that the last paragraph of the published statement, a copy of which I have with me, states that the London County Council, the Stepney Borough Council and the London Executive Council have been informed of these proposals and their observations invited.

Mr. W. Edwards: I was talking about what was read in the Press. The London newspapers which I read had nothing whatever in them to say that consultations were taking place with other authorities.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: In that event, I welcome this opportunity to put the board's case fairly. I was quoting the official recognised statement which was issued. The hon. Member knows as well as I do that the Press picks out the bits that it thinks make good news. The fact remains that the regional board behaved quite properly and in its statement made it plain that it had invited any observations from those three authorities.
In 1945, as the House will know, the Ministry of Health carried out a survey of hospital facilities in London as a prelude to the introduction of the National Health Service. In that report—as far back as 1945—it was recommended that this hospital should be closed as soon as possible. At that time, of course, it was under the control of the London County Council, who also had contemplated the desirability of its early closing. That is a matter of record and fact and not of opinion.
As hon. Members know, it is the duty of a regional hospital board to plan the hospital and specialist services in its area, and it is right that it should consider from time to time, in the light of all the changing demands, including any shift in population, which is very noticeable in this part of London, which of its hospitals should be further developed and which might be "run down". I do not in any way minimise the inevitable conflict of loyalties which might arise when, perhaps, the patients of an older, less well-equipped hospital could be dealt with at


a neighbouring larger hospital with greater facilities and which has empty beds. In such cases there is always a conflict of loyalties, and my experience at the Ministry is that no hospital is ever dosed, for whatever purpose, without giving rise to local protest.
It is, however, the responsibility of the regional board, in the light of whatever changes may arise in its region, to assess the requirements of the population and the facilities that it has for patients in the Health Service. It is only in this way that it is able to provide both an efficient and an economic service, always bearing in mind the overriding priority of the needs of the patients. I assure the hon. Member that in the representations that are made to him, my right hon. Friend will have to be satisfied that the needs of the patients can be met.
There is one point which it is fair to put. The regional board has asked those other authorities to make their views known to the board. In courtesy, those authorities should do so. The board, quite properly, has come to a decision on its experience and knowledge and has made a recommendation. It has, quite properly, invited the views of other interested bodies. Any representations and any opposition to the board's proposals should in fairness be put to the board first.
Those representations may persuade the regional board that its decision is wrong and that there is a case for maintaining the hospital fully as at present. It would, however, be quite wrong for those bodies, having been invited, quite constitutionally, by the regional board to put their case, to ignore the board in an endeavour to come straight to the Minister. Those representations should first be made to the board.

Mr. Edwards: What bodies have ignored the board?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: The suggestion is that, without going to the board, deputations should be received by the Minister and the representations should not be made to the board. That is how I understand it so far.

Mr. Edwards: I assure the hon. Lady that when the town clerk of Stepney wrote to the board in connection with the views of the Stepney Borough Council, a copy of the letter was sent to the

regional board. Surely the hon. Lady realises that the regional board has come to its decision—it has said so in black and white. The circular from the chairman of the management committee said that this matter is now in the hands of the Minister of Health. If people are objecting, is it not far better for the Minister of Health to know rather than the regional board, which has already made up its mind?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: No. The hon. Member is being unjust to the regional board. If a county council makes a decision and invites the opinion of interested local authorities, it expects those authorities to make their representations to the county council. In the same way, it is right and proper that, representations having been invited by the Board, the authorities concerned should make their representations and objections to the board.
Since the inception of the Health Service, the board has made many improvements in the hospitals in the region and a number of additional beds have been opened. The responsibility for planning the whole area is, of course, that of the board. The hon. Member conveyed a suggestion that the hospital should be maintained because people pay their National Health Service contributions to it. I must remind him that National Insurance does not now pay for the Health Service. It is paid for by over £400 million of direct taxation by this House.
During the period in question, there has, as the hon. Member knows, been a considerable shift of population from London into the new towns. It is really quite unrealistic to petition, on the one hand, for hospitals in the new towns to serve the population which has left London, and at the same time to ignore the lessened demand for beds in London. In 1939, for example, the Stepney population was 197,000. In 1949, it was 100,000, and in 1953 it was 98,000, which is half what is was in 1939. Obviously, since the population in Stepney has halved since 1939, the demand for beds has fallen.
That there has been a steady lessening of the demand in the area is shown also by the fact that in November last, when a check was taken, there were 98 vacant beds plus 20 beds temporarily unavailable at the Mile End Hospital; there were


85 beds which with staff could become available at St. Andrew's Hospital, and there were 24 beds available but unstaffed at St. Clement's Hospital.
Among other hospitals in the locality are the London Hospital, the London Jewish Hospital, Poplar Hospital and Bethnal Green Hospital. An analysis of the demand on this group of hospitals in the area shows that in the East End the demand on the number of available beds is running down. Simultaneously, the demands elsewhere are increasing as many people are moving into Harlow, Basildon, Ilford and Barking.
The board has to consider all these factors when assessing the need for beds and facilities in the area. The matter has been very fully considered by the hospital management committee and by the hospital medical advisory committee, and their recommendations have gone to the board. Following the board's statement, my right hon. Friend suggested, although the offer was already made in their statement, that the board should seek the views also of the London County Council, the London Executive Council and Stepney Borough Council. I have no doubt that the views which the hon. Member has voiced today will be formally stated to the board. My right hon. Friend, having received all those representations, will then make his decision.
I would emphasise again that no decision has yet been made, although the board, with its experience of and its responsibilities for services in this area, has come to the conclusion that the hospital should be closed. It is only proper that all interested parties should have an opportunity of putting their objections should they wish to do so. I can assure the hon. Member that those objections will be fully considered. In view of the wide publicity which has been given to one side of the case, I thought it only fair that the board's position should be put into proper perspective.

NAZI VICTIMS (ASSETS)

2.31 p.m.

Sir Henry d'Avigdor-Goldsmid: I think it is only right that I should begin by saying how much I personally regret the severe attack of laryngitis which prevents the Parliamentary Secretary of the Board of Trade from being in his place today. We all know the extreme conscientiousness with which he carries out his multitudinous tasks, and I am quite certain that hon. Members on both sides of the House will wish him a quick recovery so that he will be able to deal with the very heavy duties that will fall upon him immediately after the Recess. In his place I am very pleased to see the Minister of State, Board of Trade, and I am most grateful to him for giving up his valuable time to deal with the problems I propose to raise.
I am grateful also to Mr. Speaker for allowing me to raise on the Adjournment a matter many of the interested parties to which are now dead and of whom none has a Member of Parliament to speak for him: but it is entirely in accordance with the high traditions of this honourable House that such matters should be discussed here, that legitimate grievances should be ventilated here, and wrongs, if they exist, brought to light.
The matter which I want to raise concerns the disposal of assets in this country sent here for safe keeping before the war by individuals from the war-time enemy territories. In most cases the people concerned are not themselves the depositors but the heirs, and in many cases the property can now presumably be considered as heirless. The reasons for this are, alas, obvious. England is traditionally the country of refuge, and thanks to the humane and imaginative immigration policy of the Government of this country in the years up to 1939 very large numbers of Jews escaped to this country from persecution and ultimate murder. For that the Jewish people will always be grateful.
I want to make it clear that although I propose to be critical of the Board of Trade, that criticism in no way extends to the policy of the country as a whole, for this country has always been a great upholder of the oppressed and has always maintained that tradition. Any remarks


which I may make which are critical of the Department are not intended to reflect in any way on the country or to detract in any way from the great gratitude which the Jews will always feel to the country which supported them against their persecutors.
I want first to deal with the heirless property still left in England and administered by the Custodian of Enemy Property. I understand perfectly clearly the words used by the former Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade in a letter dated 30th April last year, in which he said:
It remains impossible either to define, Identify or estimate the extent of Jewish property in the hands of the Custodian or to say what part of any property he holds is heirless.
I accept that, but there are certain considerations to which I must draw attention. The first is that all civilised nations have had to reconsider their idea of heirless property as a result of the Nazi policy of genocide. Amongst Western nations it is the exception for there to be no heirs to identifiable property. Amongst the Jews of Germany, and, indeed, Eastern Europe as a whole, the case is reversed.
In witness to this I can cite my own experience as chairman of the Jewish Trust Corporation set up under the auspices of the Foreign Office. I would at once pay tribute to the Foreign Office for the very great help it has given to this body in all its difficulties over these matters. It was set up to administer Jewish heirless and communal property in the British Zone of Germany. During the six years I have been associated with it it has dealt with 27,000 pieces of identifiable real estate. When one recollects that the total pre-war Jewish population of this area of Germany probably never exceeded 300,000 and that presumably only a percentage of them could be considered as owners of real estate, I think one can understand the appalling effectiveness of the Nazi effort to extirpate the Jews. The huge number of cases of estates of which there are no identified heirs bears eloquent witness to this fact.
It has been recognised in the United States Of America, where on 23rd August, 1954, President Eisenhower signed the Bill passed by Congress authorising the transfer of three million dollars from the proceeds of confiscated alien property to the Jewish charitable institutions which

would use them for the relief and rehabilitation of Jewish victims of Nazi persecution. I understand that Switzerland is considering a Bill in the same terms. All such property in Western Germany is vested in successor organisations with the same object in view.
I think I have said enough on this point to establish that there is a real case in equity for considering heirless property, formerly the property of Nazi persecutees, on a special footing, and for the Government to consider whether it would be appropriate to make a special ex gratia payment to the refugee organisations, Christian and Jewish, which have worked to relieve the victims of Nazism. If such a suggestion is liable to find favour with my right hon. Friend, I need not tell him how pleased many friends of mine outside this House will be to collaborate with his officials in order to find some way of arriving at a rough approximation of the amount involved.
I have dealt first with the heirless property, and I should like to pass now to the question of property sent here for safe keeping by Jews, not only from Germany and Austria, but also from Hungary and Roumania. When war broke out and Europe was over-run by the Germans all these deposits became frozen by the Trading with the Enemy Act, and in due course they were vested in the administrators of enemy property. After the war it was recognised by most of the victorious Powers, including the United Kingdom, that it was inconsistent with the proclaimed war aims of the United Nations, and, indeed, with the ordinary dictates of justice and humanity, that the property of enemy victims should be taken in the same way as that of ordinary enemy subjects. That is the main point, that enemy victims were not in the ordinary sense of the term enemy subjects, especially as these victims had no other means in the world to support themselves or their families except the property they had been able to salvage from the general disaster by placing it in what they thought was a safe place in this country.
Certain rules were drawn up and were accepted and approved by the Inter-Allied Reparation Agency in Paris in November, 1947. They are embodied in a letter I have here from the Trading with the Enemy Department. I should like to


read extracts. Two categories of claimants are considered, namely, those enemy nationals formerly domiciled in former enemy countries, Germany, Austria, Rumania and Hungary and their heirs. I should like to read from that letter:
As regards claimants in the first category mentioned above, the Board of Trade will require to be satisfied that the applicant will fulfil the following conditions:
(i) that he was deprived of liberty pursuant to any law, decree or regulation which discriminated against religious or racial groups or other organisations, and
(ii) that he did not enjoy full rights of citizenship of the enemy country of his residence at any time between 1st September, 1939, and the abrogation of such law, decree or regulation, and
(iii) that he has left that country, or intends to leave it within a reasonable time to establish his permanent residence outside enemy or ex-enemy territory, and
(iv) that he was not disloyal to the Allied cause during the war; and
(v) that he has a case which merits favourable consideration."
In the case of heirs and legatees, the following requirements would have to be satisfied:
"(a) That the deceased himself satisfied the conditions (i) and (ii) above regarding deprivation of liberty and loss of full civil rights and
(b) that his death occurred before the end of active hostilities in the enemy country of his residence, and
(c) that the heirs or legatees are resident, or intend to reside, outside an enemy (or former enemy) country".
These rules are not in themselves oppressive if broadmindedly interpreted, but a narrow application of them has given rise to anomalies which could have been overcome by sympathetic handling of individual cases. I am going to cite a number of these where no satisfaction has been received in illustration of my point.
The first category covers people who were in hiding. People who went underground in order to avoid persecution do not qualify for restoration of their assets if they escaped being imprisoned. I will return to this presently.
Where death occurred as a result of persecution but subsequent to the signing of the Peace Treaty, the heirs cannot benefit. Persecutees from Germany and Austria who found their way to Italy are deprived of benefit because that country was regarded as former enemy territory.

The same applies if they remain in Germany or Austria. This is particularly hard as it applies mainly to people of very humble origin possessing small means who simply are not in a position to emigrate.
Where the owner of the funds died a natural death during the war, release is refused to his heirs even if they themselves were persecuted. I understand it is argued by the Board of Trade that as the owner himself escaped persecution the title to his estate could not pass as the estate itself was forfeit.
Funds standing to the credit of a partnership are not being released to the individual partners, although they qualify personally under the rules.
My last example is the most important. Although in present circumstances it is obviously very difficult indeed for people to leave countries behind the Iron Curtain, funds are not being released to them until they succeed in doing so.
The urgency in this situation is that steps are even now being taken to distribute these and other amounts to commercial creditors. Surely, it would be reasonable to earmark, in favour of claimants still in Hungary or Roumania, those sums so that they can obtain possession of them when they succeed in escaping.
I will now give some particular examples of the anomalies created. All these cases are known to the Board of Trade, and in no case, according to information received up to two days' ago, has a claim been met. The first concerns a Hungarian who applied through his solicitor in this country for the release of funds at the time when the ex gratia policy—the policy indicated in this letter—was in force; he was arranging his affairs in Hungary so as to leave the country together with his family. Incidentally, he tried to do the same just before the war but "missed the bus." He was in various concentration camps in Hungary and was ultimately deported to Auschwitz by the Nazis, so that the facts of his case as to victimisation rendered release of his assets under the policy a certainty. His solicitors were notified by the Department in terms indicating that release would be forthcoming as soon as he left Hungary.
Upon receiving this information, he immediately applied to the Hungarian


authorities for an exit permit, which was refused. He then tried to obtain one through "underground" channels, but fell into a trap laid by a police agent who promised to obtain a passport by extra-official methods but who, in fact, reported him to headquarters. As a result he was incarcerated in the same concentration camp where he had previously been detained by the Nazis, his crime being an attempt to leave the country illegally. He died in this concentration camp at the end of 1952.
According to the Departmental ex gratia policy, as published, the intention to leave former enemy territory is recognised in principle as being capable of full-filling the relative condition of release. Surely death resulting from an attempt to put into effect the intention to leave former enemy territory cannot amount to frustration of this condition and, therefore, of release to his successors in title resident abroad. His daughter obtained French nationality by special decree of the French Government in recognition of her remarkable services to France. This woman cannot obtain possession of her father's property.
Next, I will mention the case of a Hungarian, Baron Ullmann. On the 19th March, 1944, Baron Ullmann, a Jew and well known anti-Nazi, was among the first ten Hungarian Jews whom the Gestapo sent to arrest when the Germans entered Budapest. Three minutes before they entered his house, he was persuaded to go into hiding in a windowless attic in his barber's house. He remained in this cupboard until the Russians entered Budapest in October, 1944, a total of six months; and during that time all bodily functions, eating, sleeping, and all natural functions had to take place in this dark cupboard. When he reached the United Kingdom his funds were not released to him on the grounds that he had not been deprived of his personal liberty.
I have another case from Hungary, Mme. de W. On 4th April, 1944, all Jews in Budapest were ordered into "Jewish houses", a preliminary to deportation to concentration camps. Mme. de W. was smuggled out of Budapest in a car, having faked suicide. She was hidden in a house in the country, which she did not leave day or night until 31st October, 1944, when the Russians occupied the area. Meanwhile, her father

was deported and died in the concentration camp at Theresienstadt. Her sister-in-law who failed to go into hiding was deported to Auschwitz and beaten to death by S.S. guards on the railway line. Her younger brother was sent to a concentration camp and has never been heard of since. On arrival in the United Kingdom her funds were not released to her as, on the facts disclosed, she had not been deprived of her personal liberty.
I have many more cases which I could cite all couched in similar terms. I would particularly like to have the Minister's reply, so I will not take up more time. These are all actual cases the details of which I have here, and full information in regard to them is in the hands of the Board of Trade. Every one of them can be identified. If I have only instanced three, that is not because I have no more to quote.
The President of the Board of Trade himself in a letter dated 3rd October, 1952, said that there is no international agreement prohibiting the release of these assets. I do hope, on the other hand, it will not be urged that the commercial creditors of Hungary and Rumania are entitled to all these funds at the expense of these people who sent them here in all innocence and for safe keeping.
This is tainted money, and I do not think that the average fair-minded Englishman would desire to profit at the expense of such injustices as I have described.
In conclusion, I will draw attention to the noble words of my right hon. Friend the present Prime Minister which he uttered in this House on 30th March, 1944, in reply to a question by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman). Referring to the persecution of the Jews in Nazi-occupied Europe, he said:
Happily there are individuals and even official authorities among the satellites who have resisted the evil German example and have shown toleration and mercy. These things are known to the Allies, and in the hope of encouraging such good deeds and increasing their number His Majesty's Government are concerned to make it clear that those who have followed the right path will also not be forgotten in the day of final reckoning. The time of respite is short, but there is still opportunity for the merciful to multiply their acts of humanity, and for the guilty to try to make amends.…


Now comes the passage to which I want to draw particular attention:
His Majesty's Government, for their part, are firmly resolved to continue, in cooperation with all Governments and private authorities concerned, to rescue and maintain so far as lies in their power all those menaced by the Nazi terror.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th March, 1944; Vol. 398, c. 1562–3.]
These are great and inspiring words. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State will be able to recommend to his colleagues that this is a splendid chance of implementing them by relaxing, even if only a little, some of the formalities by which his Department is making it so difficult for these poor people to recover their funds. They are people whose only fault is the race into which they were born, and they are funds which they confided to this country trusting in its historic rôle as the champion of the oppressed. It may be said that hard cases make bad law, but I think I can claim that the cases which I have cited are so very hard that the law under which they arise ought to be reconsidered. I hope that the Minister of State will advise his colleagues at the Board of Trade in that sense.

2.51 p.m.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. A. R. W. Low): I should like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid) for his kind words about my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, whose absence from the Dispatch Box I deplore as much as he and the House do. As my hon. Friend knows, this difficult matter falls within the province of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade and not within my province, but I have done my best to make myself acquainted with the points at issue, and I will do my best to answer my hon. Friend.
I should like to start by saying that I am sorry my hon. Friend should have charged the Board of Trade with being unkind and callous in the way in which it is administering Government policy in this matter. I can assure him that this is a question of administering Government policy and that there is no difference inside the Government on these matters. I can also assure him that the Parliamentary Secretary, who had prepared himself to answer the debate, had studied

this matter carefully, though he may perhaps not have studied the individual cases mentioned, and that what I am saying has his approval.
My hon. Friend's speech really raised two different points, and I congratulate him on the conciseness and clarity with which he put them. He raised, first, the question of whether we might not consider the heirless property specially on a separate footing and make it available to refugee charitable organisations, whether Jewish or Christian. I will come to that at the end of my reply. The rest of my hon. Friend's speech asked for more concessions or more liberal treatment in our policy relating to the restitution of property in this country to victims of Nazi persecution.
This point has been discussed before, as has the other, in debates in the House in 1949. It has been discussed in correspondence between hon. Members and my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, and with deputations from the Board of Deputies of British Jews and others to former Ministers. Therefore, my hon. Friend will know that great consideration has been given to the kind of concessions that can be allowed. My hon. Friend read to the House very fairly the terms of the concessions that are allowed in dealing with the property in this country of German and other ex-enemy nationals.
The decision to allow these concessions was taken after the war as a result of an inter-Allied agreement. The concessions are those which my hon. Friend read out in accordance with the Inter-allied Reparations Agency rules. They seek to allow the live victims of Nazi persecution and, on certain conditions, the heirs of those victims, to have their property back. If those concessions were not granted, the property would go to the British claimants against the countries concerned. A large number of claims have been made within these concessions. A total of 904 cases have been examined, of which 656 have been admitted and 248 rejected. The percentage of admissions thus comes to 73 per cent. and covers £1½ million. I assure my hon. Friend that those cases have all been handled very thoroughly and with the greatest of sympathy.

Mr. John Foster: I will not ask my right hon. Friend to answer


the question, because I know that it is not within his bailiwick. He said that the rules would apply. Would he, therefore, ask the Parliamentary Secretary to see whether I am not correct in saying that the requirement that death should be due to Nazi persecution has been imported into the rules and that all the rules required was that the persons concerned should be dead?

Mr. Low: I will have that point referred to my hon. Friend.
When we consider concessions, the House must be aware of the difficulties of administering them. I know from my own experience how infuriating it is when one puts forward a case which seems to have sound backing on humanitarian grounds to be told, when that case is acknowledged, that there are grave administrative difficulties. The administrative problems with the concessions already given have been very serious—the large number of cases, the widely differing circumstances and the great difficulty of getting evidence, much of which has to come from behind the Iron Curtain and, we must face it, the opportunity for abuse. The very skilled and experienced staff which has handled these cases has shown not only sympathy but efficiency and fairness.
In anything like this it is right that the rules should be clearly, and fairly strictly, followed not only for administrative reasons but because releases to applicants are at the expense of British creditors. The rules have been in operation since 1948. There were minor modifications in 1950 and 1951 but there has been no modification since and, in the period since 1951, some of the property concerned has been distributed. Indeed, distribution is now well advanced.
The letter from the former Parliamentary Secretary, to which my hon. Friend referred, said, for example, that the German administrator had already distributed about 80 per cent. of the money coming into his hands. I am afraid, therefore, that it is too late to consider altering the rules. Quite apart from the amount of property that is left, there is the fact that every single one of the cases which have been rejected would have to be looked at again.
My hon. Friend referred particularly to aliens in hiding who had gone under-

ground. I appreciate the force of the point he made, but I think that he would agree that it was not only persecuted Jews who went underground but sometimes criminals. He will also agree that the evidence of going underground is difficult to find and often obtainable only from interested parties.
My hon. Friend's main argument was that we had gone wrong in strictly interpreting the words in the concession:
… was deprived of liberty pursuant to any German law, decree or regulation discriminating against religious or racial groups or other organisations …
My hon. Friend was seeking to get us to extend that, but it would not really be extending it but altering it if we made it cover people who had not only been deprived of liberty pursuant to such a law but who had voluntarily—I concede that it was under pressure—avoided the effects of the law. Therefore, I think that there is a difference and I am afraid that I cannot hold out to my hon. Friend any hope that we shall be able to alter our administration on that point.
The other major point that my hon. Friend made concerned the heirless funds and he requested that we should treat them separately and distribute them to refugee organisations. I ask my hon. Friend to believe that it is impossible to "define, identify or estimate"—I am reading from the former Parliamentary Secretary's letter—"the extent of Jewish property in the hands of the Custodian" or to say what part of that property is heirless. For it is a fact that a large part of the property in the Custodian's hands is unclaimed. That part of it was claimed was because the Jewish people who claimed it realised that there were concessions open to them. The other nationals of these countries do not claim their property because they know that British creditors rank before them.
The task of defining and identifying this property which he wishes us to treat separately would be impossible to carry out. I understand that the United States have treated this problem slightly differently. They have larger assets and relatively fewer claimants. They have allotted a global sum to Jewish charities and have not allocated to them a sum based upon the source of the property. They have been able to do that because of the amount of property in their hands.
I am sorry to have to say to my hon. Friend that, despite his persuasive speech, I am unable to hold out hope to him that we shall be able to alter the policy. Successive Governments have done their best to be fair to the victims of Nazi persecution. I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friend will take it from me that neither my sympathy, nor the sympathy of the Government, for these people needs to be stated. The administration has been sympathetic and thorough, but we have also had to keep in mind the interests of British creditors and the fact that every concession to the victims is at the expense of those creditors. We have tried to hold as fair a balance as we can, and I believe, from such examination as I have been able to give to this matter, that the Department has been successful in holding that balance.

NORTH BORNEO (TIMBER INDUSTRY)

3.4 p.m.

Mr. A. Fenner Brockway: I am reluctant to interrupt the theme which we have just been discussing as it is a matter of human liberty, of justice and of race. I do not want to express empty sympathy, since that seems worthless, but I assure the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid) of the deep concern which many of us feel about the issue he raised.
Now I want to turn the mind of the House to a distant Colony, North Borneo, away in the Pacific Ocean. On 29th February, I put a Question to the Secretary of State for the Colonies which was answered by the Minister of State for Colonial Affairs. The right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) intervened and I had hoped that he would have been able to make some comment after the speech of the Minister of State. However, my right hon. Friend has indicated to me that it has been necessary for him to attend another engagement.
North Borneo has been one of those Colonial Territories where there has been little discontent or disturbance. Now the danger of disturbance and discontent is spreading. For the first time the Native Chiefs Conference, a body that has co-operated closely with the British

Administration, has unanimously and emphatically carried a resolution deploring the changes which I will describe as "pro-European and anti-native". I shall submit to the Minister of State that when such a body adopts a resolution of that character, it is time that this House, and particularly the Colonial Office, paid very close attention to its causes.
The subject I shall discuss is the timber industry, which is so strong an element in the economy of that Colony. Those who conduct this industry can be classified in two categories. There is, first, the category of big business, dominated by European capitalist firms. It has long-term agreements with the Government. There are seven firms in that category, four of which are European. To be strictly accurate, three are British and one is financed from the United States of America. In addition, as an afterthought—and, I would say, obviously as a face-saving device—three smaller Chinese companies were added. There is not the least doubt that this first category is European-dominated, controlled by big business, and is so regarded. The other category is that of the small traders. They have annual licences to carry on the timber trade. They are Chinese and native. There are 90 such annual licensees.
On 1st January of this year a Legislative Council Paper No. 34, a photostat copy of which I have in my hand, was issued restricting the right of the smaller men, the annual licensees, to export timber. When I raised this matter on 29th February, the Minister of State said that the Chinese and native producers—
the annual licensees,…will be able to export direct much more timber than they exported in 1954."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 29th February, 1956; Vol. 549, c. 1169.]
The Minister would have had to give a very different answer if he had referred to the year 1955. I have in my hand a letter from the Secretary of State for the Colonies which states that in the present year, 1956, under these restrictions, the Chinese and native timber growers will be able to export only 80 per cent. of what they did last year. The expectations of the growers themselves are at a much lower figure than that. Their own statement is that they exported 2½ million cubic feet of timber in 1955 and that their allocation for this year has been reduced to 1,200,000 cubic feet.
There is no doubt that in this matter the interests of the large European companies have been placed above those of the small producers, both Chinese and native. Under the new system, the small traders, not having the liberty to export their timber, must sell to the large European companies, and they are compelled to sell at prices which are much less than the prices in the open market. I give one example. The British Borneo Timber Company is now buying selected logs of S.Q. quality at 2s. l½d. per cubic foot, whereas the price in the open market is 3s. 7d., f.o.b.
Indeed, this White Paper, in the clearest possible terms, says that the justification of the new policy is that the annual licensees are selling their timber cheaper and are so affecting the interests of the big companies. I quote from the photostat copy which I have here:
Unfortunately, and as was not foreseen, production by annual licensees now constitutes a threat to the large scale operators and to the long-term interests of the timber industry as a whole. With no appreciable capital outlay "—
here I miss out some words, because it is a long sentence—
the annual licensees' costs of production are very significantly lower than thost of the operators under standard agreements.
In other words, because the small producers are able to produce their timber at lower costs, the large European companies are to have this privilege and preference in exports, at the expense of the smaller Chinese and native producers. May I say, incidentally, that the annual licensees deny that they are underselling, and this is one of the reasons why they are making the demand for an inquiry.
Why are the European companies' costs higher? It is because there are two types of land. As is explained in some detail in the letter from the Secretary of State for the Colonies, the land which is operated by the large European companies is occupied by permanent forests, is difficult of access, rail and road tracks are necessary, staff quarters are necessary and heavy equipment is necessary. One accepts all that, but why should the monopoly in the exploitation of these permanent forests be handed over to these European companies? Why should it not be a scheme under the Colonial Development Corporation? Why should

we not have the imagination to see that these native peoples and the large Chinese immigrant population should have the opportunity to develop this natural industry on the soil of North Borneo? Why should there not be cooperative schemes for timber production, similar to the co-operative schemes in other Colonies, with British technicians, and with the native and Chinese producers, who live on the spot, feeling that it is their enterprise and not exploitation by external European companies?
There is a suspicion in North Borneo that the European capitalist companies are being favoured, placed in a privileged position and given special protection, and I am not surprised at that suspicion. Before 1952, the British Borneo Timber Company, Ltd., had a monopoly of rights of timber exploitation in North Borneo. When it was compensated in 1952, the company was presented with £350,000, and compensation was also given for its reduced profits over the next three years. This amounted to £1 million. I say frankly that it is a scandal that that vast sum should be paid in compensation to a European company in North Borneo at the expense of the poverty-stricken people who live in that British Colony.
When I last raised this matter, the Minister of State replied that the matter was still open. It was still to go before the Legislative Council. If I may say so, I think that reply was a little misleading, because the Legislative Council has no powers whatsoever. The Attorney-General in North Borneo said the Paper No. 34 was being placed before the Legislative Council only for information. In the first place, the Legislative Council is dominated by the official element; in the second place, it has no power at all to amend this paper. Therefore, I do not think it was enough to say that the matter was left open. By decree, it was applied last January, and it is in operation now.
I always like to be constructive in my speeches, as well as negative and denunciatory. I make this proposal for the very serious consideration of the Minister of State. The argument is that the Chinese and native timber growers must be kept out of the export market because their prices would undercut the big British capitalist companies. That was the suggestion of the Minister of


State. I now put some questions to him from the experience of other Colonial Territories.
Why should there not be a pool of the timber grown both by the native and Chinese producers and by the European companies, just as there is a pool of cocoa in the Gold Coast, just as there is a pool of cotton in Uganda? Why should there not be a pool of that kind, and the timber grown, both by the native and Chinese producers and the British companies, be sold from that common pool at a single price? I should very much like to hear the comments of the Minister of State on that proposal, because it is a proposal which is successfully operating in many other Colonies at the present time.
I have had to be brief, but I hope I have said sufficient to show that there is justification for the demand for an inquiry into this situation, as demanded by the native and Chinese growers in North Borneo. I hope that the Minister will agree to suspend the operation of this privilege and protection to the European companies until such an inquiry has been held.

3.19 p.m.

The Minister of State for Colonial Affairs (Mr. John Hare): I am sure that the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Fenner Brockway) has raised this matter with every genuine intention of giving as fair a picture as possible of the timber industry in North Borneo. However, although he has been accurate in many points, I am afraid that he has not been able to give that picture, because he has not been entirely accurate on some other points which, as I shall try to point out, are very vital to the argument which he has put forward.
As the hon. Member quite rightly says, the British Borneo Timber Company was granted a monopoly of the timber production in the Colony in 1920. This concession could have run until 1965, with an option for the Government to break it in June, 1955, ten years before the ultimate date. As part of the terms of the bargain under which the concession was given, the Government were required to take over the concern on termination of the concession at a fair value and to pay a sum for goodwill equal to the total net profits in the last three years.
It should be remembered that in 1920 capital was urgently needed, and every encouragement was given to this company to go to Borneo to do this work. Those were the terms on which the company went to Borneo to operate, and for the hon. Member to say that it was scandalous to pay compensation is hardly relevant when, in fact, that was the bargain entered into by the Government and the company.

Mr. Brockway: It was a wrong bargain.

Mr. Hare: I dare say the hon. Member thinks so, but the bargain was made and in the opinion of some people a bargain must be kept.
As a result of special negotiations with the company, however, agreement was reached to terminate the concession in June, 1952, three years earlier than the Government had a right to end it. Quite frankly, the effect of this monopoly has been in the past to restrict the exploitation of the Colony's rich timber resources—and here I am being perfectly frank with the hon. Gentleman; I agree with him here. In order that these resources should be exploited on a sound basis, capital investment was needed to provide for the building of roads, rail tracks and quarters for the labour force and also for the provision of expensive heavy equipment.
As part of the termination of its concession, a new agreement was entered into with the North Borneo Timber Company which enables this company to operate over a limited area for a period of twenty-one years, with conditions imposing modern large-scale methods of afforestation and silvicultural control providing for a true regeneration cycle of about eighty years. These are heavy conditions. Under the same conditions agreements were also made with three other oversea companies and three local companies. The hon. Member may sneer and say that that is a face-saving device, but out of the seven concessionaires three are Chinese. For him to say that that is a face-saving device is not very generous.
I hope hon. Members will note the fact that strong sanctions can be employed against all seven of these concessionaires if they fail to live up to these principles of good forestry and provide for the regeneration of those areas in which they have felled their timber.
In addition to these arrangements, large areas became available for exploitation in parts of Borneo which experts consider are not suitable for conservation as permanent forests—areas which would ultimately be better suited for agricultural development. It is in these areas that annual licences have been issued to individuals and firms.
In the operation of these annual licences very little capital investment and machinery is required. Communications do not present a problem, because in most of the areas labour is obtainable from nearby villages and communications are fairly good. It is, therefore, not surprising that operations of this type can be carried out far more cheaply than is the case with the seven major concessionaires whom I have already mentioned. I am sure the hon. Gentleman can see the reason for which these operators can function more cheaply.
I would also stress that no sanctions of silvicultural control are placed upon these annual licensees; they do not have to replant or to see that where they cut trees, new trees are available for future generations. Last year, 40 per cent, of the total timber export frum North Borneo went to Japan. The Japanese timber market was flooded and at the moment is depressed. Japanese importers have been able to beat down prices, amend contracts and on occasions even refuse delivery. It was, therefore, essential to do something to protect the long-term interests of the Borneo timber industry, and because of this a measure of control has been introduced.
The hon. Member is wrong when he says that only 1,200,000 cubic feet of timber is estimated as going to be exported in 1956. Admittedly, the figure has been cut from 2,600,000 cubic feet in 1955 to 2 million cubic feet in 1956, but not, I assure him, to 1,200,000 cubic feet. I think he was incorrectly informed.

Mr. Brockway: May I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the last paragraph in Paper 34, which I have in my hand, and which says:
The total of export rates to be made available to annual licensees in 1956 in accordance with the arrangements outlined above has been assessed at 1,200,000 cubic feet."?

Mr. Hare: I think that the hon. Gentleman is talking in the wrong terms. The total amount of timber exported last

year was 2,600,000 cubic feet, and it is estimated that the total amount of timber to be exported this year will be 2 million cubic feet. That is the latest information I have, and I can assure the hon. Member that it is accurate.
The problem was to ensure that the long-term concessionaires should be able to operate and maintain their efficiency. At the same time, it was equally important that the new policy should not be unjust to the smaller operators. At the end of last year strong pressure was being brought to bear both at home—by the hon. Member amongst others—and against the Borneo Government, based on the assumption that annual licensees would be forced out of business. I can only tell the House that to date no annual licensee has closed down—I have a telegram from the Governor dated 26th March to that effect—and no labour is reported to have been laid off.
The hon. Member might also like to note that no representations against this new policy have been made to the Government since the end of January. There have been no official representations. I have had this confirmed in the telegram and it perhaps shows that the hon. Member has been somewhat misinformed on the point. It is also utterly wrong to imply that racial discrimination has been used. I have touched on this already and the hon. Member was fair enough to say that of the licensees the majority were Chinese; there are some Europeans, some Dusuns and some Malays, and I have said that three out of the seven concessionaire companies are Chinese.
The whole matter is being discussed at the end of the month in the Borneo Legislative Council. It is no use the hon. Member for Eton and Slough saying that the Legislative Council has no power. It is probably true that it has no power, but he must not assume that governors and governments are unreasonable people. I can assure him that every consideration will be given to sound and sensible points of criticism raised in that debate and I am quite certain that the Governor and we at the Colonial Office will always listen to sensible suggestions made by the hon. Member and, indeed, by all hon. Members on either side of the House.
Here, we are advocating what I should have thought would have met with the


approval of the hon. Member. We are, in fact, trying to do long-term planning. We believe that the conservation and exploitation on a scientific, self-renewing basis of the forests of Borneo is essential to the welfare of the Colony. I should have thought that the hon. Member would be fair enough to admit that the Borneo Government policy is, in fact, one of long-term planning. By controlling exploitation of their natural resources, they are aiming to preserve them and, indeed, improve them for prosperity.
They have, as I have tried to explain, to obtain a fair balance between the larger firms, with all this capital locked up, and the smaller operators. I hope that the hon. Member will accept my assurance that I will pay attention to any useful criticism that he puts forward and he can certainly rely on the Governor to listen to any useful criticisms brought out in the Legislative Council debate. I must disappoint the hon. Member by saying that I do not think that his criticisms this afternoon have been justified. I hope that he will be big enough to admit that I have been able to add something to a knowledge which was not quite perfect when we started our debate today.

Mr. Brockway: I made two constructive proposals. The first was that long-term planning should include co-operative schemes and the second was a pool sale of exports as there is in other Colonies. Is the Minister ready to submit those to the Governor for his consideration?

Mr. Hare: I am sure that the Governor will be given every opportunity of reading the hon. Member's points; but it would be very premature to condemn a scheme before it has had a chance to be tried out and, therefore, quite improper for me to say at this juncture that we can accept either of the hon. Gentleman's two suggestions.

CYPRUS (MARONITE CHURCH)

3.31 p.m.

Mr. William Teeling: I can speak not only for myself but for the Maronite community in Cyprus in saying how grateful we are to Mr. Speaker for having made it possible to have this debate this afternoon. It is worth while that the outside world should realise how small communities and groups of people throughout the Empire and especially the Colonies can, when they want, get the ear of the House on problems which are entirely their own.
It is particularly nice to think that sometimes Members of Parliament, when they cease to be Members of Parliament and leave the House, can still take an interest in the Colonies and other areas in which they were previously interested. That has enabled us to talk about this subject today. I am referring to a former Member whom many hon. Members will remember, Captain Alan Graham, who was here for many years and who later went to live in Cyprus. It was he who put me in touch with the Maronite community when I was in Cyprus about a year age and when the Maronites told me about their particular problems.
I will not go into the history of the Maronites, because I am not a theologiar and I do not know all the details of their past. I believe that some people say that their history goes back to the fifth century when there was a priest called Maro and some say their history goes back only to the eighth century. Be that as it may the Maronites are a very old religious community in the Middle East and, of course, for many generations they were under the Turks of the Ottoman Empire
At about the time of the Crusades they got into touch with the Crusaders coming from Europe and they linked themselves with the Latin rites of the Roman Church Today they are in communion with the Roman Catholic Church, although a separate religious community on then own. They number about 500,000, mainly in the Lebanon, with communities nothing like so large in Egypt and Syria, and with about 5,000 in Cyprus. That is not a very large community. It is about 1 pet cent. of the whole population of Cyprus


but it is a group which is loyal to this country, and it is a very religious group.
However, because of its small numbers and the fact that its members are scattered in many villages throughout Cyprus, the group is very poor. It has only one church, I believe in Nicosia. I have visited the church and met the Maronites there. They find that they are far too large a community for that church. Almost next door is an old palace—or the remains of an old palace—and some people say that part of it was a former chapel called La Madonna Del Castello. That is the chapel or building that the Maronites are asking to have handed over to them.
It is at the moment being used by the archaeological department of the Government of Cyprus. It is being used, I believe, as a store for things that should one day go into the museum. I have written on more than one occasion to the Secretary of State for the Colonies about this, and I have had replies on the matter in the House.
Last July, my right hon. Friend answered that he himself had been told about this problem and had discussed it with the Governor. I can only say that when I was there in April, the then Governor knew nothing about it at all. It had not even reached the high authority of the Executive Council; but he promised to look into it. The Colonial Secretary was very busy in July and August, and he had only time to say that he would look into it and would ask the Governor to do so again. The information which I have is that the Governor had looked into this matter—that was in December—and that he could not find a place suitable for the museum. It was true that this building was being used as a storage house and that something like £5,000 had been spent on it since, presumably, 1939, when it was taken over, and they say now that they cannot move out of it at the present moment.
When I was there, the head of the museum was very frank with me and said that by then, last April, not more than £2,000 had been spent on altering the building and they felt that as they got so little money from the Government to run these museums they dare not lose £2,000. They felt that this must go on, as it was going to be used for exhibits. Once the storage was more or less suit-

ably cleared away people would be allowed to visit it and on the profits from that they hoped to raise the £2,000 and if they did so they would be prepared to vacate it. They pointed out that the chance of raising this money was slight at the moment and would probably take five or six years. That was the attitude of the museum.
I have again asked questions on this subject and each time I have been told that the Government are indeed in sympathy with the Maronites but there is such a shortage of building at the present time in Cyprus that it is almost impossible to find anywhere where the museum could go and they were busy looking for a suitable place.
I have read in the papers in the last two days reports on the financial problems of Cyprus at the present moment. The Governor has told us of the greatly increased expenditure naturally necessitated by the troubles of that country. He has also told us of the millions of pounds now being spent to develop Cyprus. I feel that out of all these millions it might be possible to write off £5,000 from the museum, or perhaps only £2,000, and satisfy a really loyal community in that island.
I have had letters since I raised this question from people who have nothing whatever to do with the Maronites but who happen to live in Cyprus, mostly British subjects, and they have said that it is quite amazing to see the loyalty of the Maronite villagers scattered throughout the island. Such is their loyalty that very often they get into trouble with their Greek Orthodox neighbours, and therefore this is a very small thing for which we are asking, perhaps as a reward.
I have an awful feeling that it is a question of red tape and that if only someone of the calibre of the Secretary of State for the Colonies or the Minister of State would say "This has got to be done", these very few thousand pounds would be written off and a building found. It cannot be all that difficult to find some place in which to store a few museum pieces. It is very interesting and wholly worth while to know that Cyprus is developing her archaeological plans, and it is useful to have these things to show tourists when they go there after peace returns.
But, in the meantime, surely a live religion is more worth while. It is surely worth while to support a body of people who are very religious-minded and not in the least politically minded and who are extremely loyal to our present Government. I have had a letter from the Maronite Archbishop of Cyprus now living in the Lebanon, and I am sure that the House will forgive me if I am rather slow in translating it because it is in French. I will translate a sentence from it. It says:
We would be equally grateful to you, Monsieur le Deputé, if you would express to the Government of Her Majesty the sentiments of our personal attachment and the tremendous loyalty of all our Maronite subjects in Cyprus.
In addition, in these days when we badly need friends in the Middle East it would be a good thing for the 500,000 people in the Lebanon to know that their friends in Cyprus are being helped, supported and recognised. It is worth spending this small sum, which cannot be much more than £5,000. Surely we can ask the Government to do something about it today.

3.40 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Kershaw: I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Teeling) upon his expert translation of a foreign letter into HANSARD language straight away. I shall delay the House for only a few minutes.
I want to reinforce my hon. Friend's plea for our consideration of this small community in Cyprus. Like my hon. Friend, I am not a theologian and perhaps, as a Protestant, I might have even less of an idea about theological niceties and Maronite rites than himself. I shall not develop that part of the discussion, but I submit that the House ought to give consideration to the position of any minority.
When the British Crown was first connected with Cyprus this community of Maronites consisted of 80,000 people. Their numbers are now down to about 5,000. One of our most proud claims in our colonial and Empire policy is that our rôle has been to serve and protect the interests of minorities. Certainly, in Cyprus there are very important minorities, whose position is responsible

for the intense difficulty which exists there today. We cannot afford—least of all in Cyprus, perhaps—to be negligent of the interests of minorities.
The circumstances which, in recent years, have attended our departure from some of the places which we had ruled for generations have proved that unless great care is taken of those minorities they will suffer. The circumstances which attended our departure from Burma and India were terrible for the minorities which existed there. This question of minorities is extremely important in our colonial policy, and for that reason, if for no other, I hope that the position of this Maronite religious sect will be borne in mind.
It is not a great deal to ask that they should have a proper church in which to worship. In relation to the crisis which exists in Cyprus, the amount of money involved is not very large. As my hon. Friend mentioned, they are an extremely loyal community, although, even if they were not, I consider that we should stand up for their rights as a minority. I hope that the Minister will be able to say that he will look further into this matter and see whether it is not possible to allow this small amount to be spent in renovating their chapel. Spending that small amount in that way might be far more useful than spending the same amount of money upon suppression in Cyprus, which is unfortunately necessary at the moment. It might pay a real dividend in the future. I hope that something can be done in this matter.

3.44 p.m.

The Minister of State for Colonial Affairs (Mr. John Hare): Perhaps I may reply, with the leave of the House. I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Teeling) for giving us this opportunity to discuss the affairs of the Maronite community in Cyprus. At a time when a number of other events of a far more turbulent character are taking place in Cyprus, and are occupying the headlines, it is only right and proper that we should spare time to discuss the well-being of this small community whose loyalty to the British connection has never been called in question. I could not agree more with what both my hon. Friends have said about the fidelity and loyalty of this community to us here at home.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion said, the Maronites are a Christian sect who have been in communion with the Roman Catholic Church since early in the eighteenth Century. My information is that they have been established in Cyprus for at least thirteen hundred years, so I beat my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion, who claimed only five hundred. They were at one time considerably more numerous than they are now, some of the community having possibly been absorbed into other faiths in Cyprus.
I am not sure that either of my hon. Friends was quite certain that the figure he gave of the numbers of this community was accurate. My hon. Friends said five thousand, but the census of 1946 put the figure of the Maronites at two thousand five hundred, and showed that most of them occupied four villages, while some were dispersed in the towns, especially in Nicosia.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Pavilion has informed the House, not only in this debate but in a number of Questions in recent months, the Cyprus Maronites are badly in need of the church. Nobody disputes this. Their own church in Nicosia is dilapidated and small. The Vicar-General of the Maronites has suggested that a building called the Topkhane, that is to say, a former arsenal, might be handed over to the Maronites for use as a church. He has, in fact, claimed that the building is the old Church of the Madonna del Castello.
The Vicar-General's claim is hotly disputed by the Director of Antiquities in Cyprus. He has been there for twenty years and has a very thorough knowledge of this building and other ancient buildings. He does not agree with the Vicar-General, and considers that the building is of secular origin and that it once formed part of the palace of the Lusignan Kings. I am not trying to involve myself in a dispute between two people who, however sincere, hold very different points of view on this matter.
There can be no doubt that the Topkhane has belonged to the Cyprus Government from time immemorial. Until 1939, when the Antiquities Department took it over, it was used as a municipal store. Since then, the Government

have spent £5,400 on preserving its structure and on adapting it to house the mediaeval section of the Cyprus Museum and on acquiring adjoining property to improve the amenities. I do not think that my hon. Friend was quite clear that the display of early Christian and mediaeval antiquities which it is designed to house will be open to the public this year. The building is not going to be used as a store but as a museum this year.
The Government of Cyprus have given very serious consideration to the Maronites' request that the building should be made available to them. Since the main Cyprus museum is overcrowded, an alternative home would have to be found for the museum's medieval collection, and try as hard as they could they have been unable to find a suitable alternative building. However, I can make this pledge—and the Maronite community has been told—that if a suitable building can be found the Director of Antiquities will offer it the first option on the lease of the Topkhana.
In addition, the Government have also arranged for a search to be made on behalf of the Maronites for another building which might serve them as a church. This would have to be in the vicinity of their present church, and unfortunately it has not proved possible to find a suitable building yet that satisfies these conditions. In the circumstances—I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion knows this—the Governor suggested to the Vicar-General of the Maronite community that his object should, therefore, be to build a new church on the site of the present one. At present, however, the strain on building resources in Cyprus is so great that it will not be possible to start a building of this kind for the time being.
When it does become possible to make building resources available for a church, the question of finance will obviously arise. The Vicar-General has proposed to the Government that they should make a free grant of £23,000 to the community for the construction of the Church. I regret to say that a free grant of this order would be out of the question, but at the same time the Cyprus Government are anxious to give the community whatever help they can, and will certainly afford reasonable assistance. For instance, it


would help with the provision of loan facilities in order to aid the Maronites to construct this new church.
I am afraid that I must inform both of my hon. Friends that, in the present circumstances in Cyprus, I feel that it is not possible for the Government to go further than I have been able to indicate. I have consulted my right hon. Friend on this and he has told me to say that he can see no immediate prospect of help being forthcoming to this community over the question of its church. We certainly recognise this community as a valuable section of the inhabitants of Cyprus and we shall do whatever we can to help it, both specifically as a community and by raising the general standard of living of all the population of Cyprus.
I should like to conclude this debate by briefly drawing the attention of the House to the way in which the Cyprus development plan, which was outlined by the Governor in his Budget speech earlier this week, will, once it gets under way, be of help to the Maronites. For example, those Maronites living in the villages should benefit from the funds earmarked under the plan for expenditure in the next twelve months on rural development projects. These funds amount to about £1½ million, and if they show good results for this year it is the Government's intention to give further financial assistance on a substantial scale to similar projects in subsequent years.
Similarly, programmes of irrigation and village water supplies are to be accelerated, there is to be research into water resources, and the general tackling of agricultural problems is to be stepped up. I think that the development plan is also bound to help the Maronites who live in the towns, because they will benefit from the schemes of port development, expansion of electrical services and the inland telecommunication services. It is fair to say that all the Maronites, townsmen and countrymen alike, will benefit from the social insurance scheme which has just been published and which will come into operation this autumn.
To sum up, I can assure the House and my two hon. Friends that Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Cyprus are deeply conscious of the needs of this very loyal community and will do the best within their power

to help it. A large part of this help, however, cannot in the circumstances be directed to the Maronites alone. It must be directed to raising their standard of living as part of the community as a whole. Therefore, much as I would like to do so and much as I appreciate the eloquence of both my hon. Friends, I very much regret that I am not able to help in the way which they have suggested.

Mr. Teeling: Would there be a possibility of letting the Maronites have a piece of land? If they cannot have a building, could they be provided with some land on the outskirts of, say, Nicosia?

Mr. Hare: My hon. Friend perhaps did not appreciate that the Government of Cyprus have already been asked by the Vicar-General of the Maronite community for a grant of £23,000 towards the construction of a church. I will certainly see that what he said about the gift of land is brought to the attention of the Governor of Cyprus, but I am afraid that would not really satisfy the Maronite community in the way that I know my hon. Friend wishes to help them.

COUNCIL OF EUROPE (JUNIOR ATHLETICS FESTIVAL)

3.56 p.m.

Miss Elaine Burton: I am speaking as one who has a very firm belief in the work of the Council of Europe, as I think the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs knows. I believe in it in the first place because I think it is a useful sounding board for European opinion and it is also a place where Members of the Parliaments of all the European countries can make very useful contacts.
Both those facts are important in themselves, but also, since I have had the pleasure of being there, I believe that it is a place where concrete jobs can be done. I grant that they may be small jobs, but they are none the less valuable for all that. I feel that the more real small jobs that we do the greater will be the influence of the Council of Europe. I think that as a result the Council will become more capable of doing the really big jobs.
Many of us believe that that can only come about by influencing public opinion, by public opinion knowing more about the Council of Europe—in fact, by bringing the Council of Europe into the homes and the lives of the ordinary people of Europe.
I know that in this House one has only to mention the word "culture" for the Beaverbrook Press to reach for its gun, but I am feeling very peaceful today and I am hoping that the only gun which we shall hear as a result of this debate will be the gun which is used for starting athletic events.
Last July, at the Council of Europe, we were having a debate on the Report of the Committee on Cultural and Scientific Questions. Many of us there remembered that the Council of Cultural Experts was the first committee of its kind to be established by the Council of Europe. I thought then, and I still think, that excellent work has been done in that field.
However, I feel also—and I want to stress this—that there has been a tendency to cater too much for educationists, key personnel and civil servants. I believe—perhaps as being none of those three—that too much emphasis in that direction is not going to be good for the future of the Council of Europe. I know that such schemes are necessary, but I do not believe that, however good they are, they will set the world on fire with enthusiasm, nor do I believe that they will make young people feel that they want to know more about Europe and about the Council of Europe. It is that point that I want to emphasise today.
Various suggestions were made in that debate in Strasbourg last July, and certainly I would agree that we must have microfilms of manuscripts and an exchange of documents and lecturers. Certainly it is useful that civil servants shall know the workings of national and local governments in the member countries. But that would take far too long to reach the ordinary people. There is an enormous fund of good will in this Council of Europe. I believe that if Europe could realise it, too, there would be no limit to what the Assembly could do.
At Strasbourg some first-class booklets and pamphlets about Europe and the Council of Europe have been brought out,

but I shall never believe that through those books alone, however good they may be, or even mainly through those books, shall we make the ordinary citizens of Europe feel that this is a living organisation with interests that they can share and with interests which actually appeal to them. We must do something more.
There are critics of the Council of Europe. I am afraid that in many cases they are people who have not had the pleasure of working there. There are some organs of the Press which are also critical. The main criticism levelled at the Council is that it is a place where people talk, where people have their heads in the clouds and where nothing gets done. I do not believe that to be true.
To make it clear that it is not so, I should like to see much greater emphasis laid on what I would describe as the more human aspect which is likely to appeal to the ordinary person. Probably the development of Eurovision will have a great effect in this respect. I think that films of everyday life in the member States would help, and I very much want to see the organisation of European journeys by train or boat, not only for students, but for groups of all types of people. As the Joint Under-Secretary knows, I submitted a proposal to the Assembly on those lines last October, and it was passed by an overwhelming majority. These are living things. They are projects which touch the life of the ordinary people in all our countries.
At the conclusion of my speech in July I suggested the development of the sports side of the countries in the Council of Europe. That would have three effects. First, it would improve the standard of our young athletes. Secondly, if, as of course we should, we made it the responsibility of each country to see that the youngsters who were good enough to compete were able to do so, it would mean that not only those who could afford it would be able to make the journey.
Thirdly, it would result in a growing interest in Europe and the Council of Europe, not only among all the young people who aspire to compete, but also among their families and their friends. That suggestion met with approval, and we were able to carry it a stage further


in October last. In fact, in view of the wholehearted and, I think I may say, unanimous approval of the delegates, it was obvious that the idea would be welcomed.
During the past six months we have been exploring possibilities, as the Joint Under-Secretary knows. I should like to pay tribute to him first for the help which he has given me in this matter. Secondly, I think that this is the moment lo pay another tribute—I am sure the Joint Under-Secretary will be the first to agree with me—to two organisations and their secretaries for the very considerable help which they have also given me. I refer to the British Amateur Athletic Board and Mr. Crump and the Schools Athletic Association and Mr. Butler. Without the help of both we should not have got very far.
The suggestion that I am putting to the Joint Under-Secretary today is that we should have a European junior athletics festival. Such a festival would be limited to those under 17 years of age on 1st January in the year of the actual festival, and the competitors must still be at school.
Predominating equally with the athletics aspect would be the educational one, because such an event would mean that all the young people would have the opportunity of seeing for themselves life in other countries. I am convinced that it would do much to promote good will among the nations of Europe.
Actual events have been proposed, but it is not necessary that I should detail them here. There are fourteen for boys and eight for girls. The suggestion is that two competitors should be sent for each event, plus a relay team. That would give us an overall total of about fifty competitors per country as a maximum, plus officials.
We suggest that it is obvious that the festival should be held in one of the member countries of the Council of Europe, and I think that the Joint Under-Secretary would agree that it would seem appropriate that the first one should be held in Strasbourg, as the home of the Council of Europe. Indeed, last autumn I was able to have talks with many representatives of the sporting organisations in Strasbourg, every one of whom welcomed the idea. I believe they welcomed

it particularly because they are hoping to have a grand new stadium ready for use in Strasbourg this year, and they thought that such a festival would be a very fitting event with which to open it.
For Britain to send a team such as I have mentioned to such a festival would mean travelling expenses of about £12 per person; accommodation would cost about £1 a day; that is a total of approximately £17 per head for five days. which we thought would cover the total time spent in travelling and at the festival. If we take an outside figure of £20 per person, that means a total of £1,000 for fifty people, which is a small sum when we look at the scale of Government expenditure today.
I would stress to the hon. Gentleman, although I know he realises it, that these figures are not mine; they have been worked out for me by people who have done the sort of thing which I am proposing. They are realistic figures, and I give them to him as being quite correct. In order to help the hon. Gentleman when he replies, I ought to explain the background of the position. It would be difficult to carry such a venture forward—as he and I know, being interested in athletics—unless one had the support of sporting organisations.
The view of the British Amateur Athletic Board, as conveyed to me in writing, was that it was essential that this should be a meeting concerning athletes who were still attending school. If athletes outside that category were included, the meeting would have to be under the auspices of the International Amateur Athletic Federation and, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the Federation could not support it. The policy of the Federation is, first, that it must control any large-scale meeting of an international character, and, secondly, that it cannot organise meetings which are open only to part of the European nations which are members of the International Amateur Athletic Federation. I accept both those points entirely.
The second main point concerning the British Amateur Athletic Board is that the Board would not wish to organise a large-scale international meeting or to take part in any such meeting where prestige considerations would be involved. It would be quite prepared to see


the Schools Athletic Association undertaking the organisation and raising a team. Indeed, I was assured at the end of last year that the British Amateur Athletic Board would not fail to give the official blessing which was necessary, but, if the meeting were to be extended to athletes outside those normally within the scope of the Schools Athletic Association, the Board itself would have to select and manage a team, and that it would not be prepared to do.
I was very grateful for having these possible obstacles brought to my notice. I believe we should probably have failed to realise these difficulties but for the assistance given by Mr. Crump and Mr. Butler, for whose help I am most appreciative. It may be apt here to quote a paragraph from a letter I received from Mr. Crump of the British Amateur Athletic Board, in which he says:
I feel quite sure that if this Schools International Athletic Festival could be brought intobeing with no questions of National prestige being involved, it would act as a considerable incentive to schoolchildren to take a great interest in their athletics and, of course, I, like you, have no doubt whatsoever as to the value of these international exchanges.
If I can be of arty further service to you in this matter I hope you will not hesitate to let me know.
In addition, as I think the Joint Under-Secretary knows, the Schools Athletic Association has assured me that it agrees with the proposal, and that it is prepared to support and to help with it. The Committee on Social Questions at Strasbourg, on whose behalf this work is being done, has very willingly accepted the recommendations arising out of the points made by Mr. Crump of the British Amateur Athletic Board, so we have got that aspect cleared out of the way. The proposal for this European junior athletics festival will come before the Council of Europe next month.
The question of expense is important. There has, of course, never been any question that either of the two organisations mentioned should in any way contribute financially to the scheme; that has been made clear to them from the beginning. It will have been noted that we propose that the festival should be part athletics and part educational. As well as being, we hope, beneficial to the youngsters taking part, there was another reason for that. It seemed to me that if we stressed this double aspect, there

would be at least three ways in which the question of expense could be met: first, from the Council of Europe; second, from the Ministry of Education; or third, from each local authority involved, for in this country any local education authority could grant-aid a local competitor in a team under the School Journeys Association.
For good measure, I would suggest to the Joint Under-Secretary a fourth possibility—that is, the British Council. I have looked up the Charter of the British Council, and I find in it words to the effect that the developing of closer cultural relations between the United Kingdom and other countries is one of the objects that it sets out to achieve. I must, however, make it clear that I have not raised this matter with the British Council. I merely put it to the Joint Under-Secretary as a fourth possibility for raising money.
The festival would cost under £2,000 for the United Kingdom team. Even if the officials are included, it would cost at most £1,500. The hon. Gentleman will remember that I mentioned a figure of £1,000 without the officials, so I think a figure of £1,500 with the officials is certainly the maximum.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Lord John Hope): That is what it could cost for this country?

Miss Burton: I was dealing only with the cost of our own team because I did not imagine that the Foreign Office would pay the cost of all the teams. I thought we might have more chance of success by asking simply for the meeting of the cost of our own.
The amount of good will that such a festival could do in Europe would be almost impossible to measure. To my mind, it would do more good than all the White Papers, or the blue books or memoranda that we receive from the Council of Europe. It would bring the Council of Europe home to ordinary people of Europe, and I hope that we shall have the support of the Government in bringing it about.

4.13 p.m.

Mr. Alfred Robens: I promise not to detain the House for more than a few minutes. We ought to be grateful to


my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South (Miss Burton) for raising this matter and giving us the opportunity to discuss it. My hon. Friend was herself an outstanding athlete. If my memory serves me correctly, she was world sprint champion in 1920. It is gratifying that she has been able to dovetail her experience at the Council of Europe—to which in the last two years she has made a great contribution, which is acknowledged on all sides—with her interest in athletics.
I hope that the Joint Under-Secretary of State will be able this afternoon to say that he accepts in principle the ideas that my hon. Friend has put forward, and that he will persuade his right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary, who sits on the Council of Ministers at the Council of Europe, to push the scheme through.
I do not want to deal with cost because I am sure that a matter of £1,500 would not cause any anxiety to the Government. I want, however, to indicate my belief in the necessity of a much greater interchange of young people throughout the European countries especially. I believe that international relations in the long run will be based far more upon personal associations and friendships than upon anything else, and that as travel facilities year by year become much easier there will be a much greater movement of ordinary people among the peoples of other nations. It seems to me that the Council of Europe could undertake this task better than any other international organisation.
I was one of the United Kingdom representatives on the Council of Europe for three years, and I know the tremendous amount of work which it has done, but nothing has yet been done about what my hon. Friend has suggested. It will be a good thing if it can be done. I am glad that my hon. Friend stressed the point about the age of these young people. If we can give these young people the opportunity to travel abroad and to meet people whom we refer to as foreigners, they will realise that foreigners are like ourselves, and that, by and large, they believe in the things in which we believe and want the same things we want; and thus we shall move more rapidly to a better understanding between nations. This is really an important matter, and this kind of interchange

between people cannot start at too early an age. I hope that the Council of Europe can be given this additional task to fulfil.
It must be remembered that people who do not believe in democracy are using young people throughout the world to further their ends. They invite young people to all sorts of festivals for the purpose of pursuing political ideologies which we do not accept. It seems to me wrong to leave the approach to youth entirely to organisations of that sort. My hon. Friend has indicated a real opportunity of doing what is worth while not only towards improving the standard of athletics in the various countries but also in respect of that interchange between peoples that I regard as highly important. I do hope, therefore, that the Joint Under-Secretary of State will feel it possible to give the scheme his blessing, and to persuade his right hon. and learned Friend, who sits on the Council of Ministers, to impress it upon the Council of Europe.
I am sorry that my hon. Friend, having done her term of two years, will not herself be attending the meetings of the Council of Europe. I should not like to see the work which she has already done lost and come to nothing. It is a project which the Government can assist, and, indeed, it is now the Government who should assist it. I hope that they will agree that what my hon. Friend has suggested is worth while, will give it their blessing, and will try to further it.

4.17 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Lord John Hope): I should like at the outset to join the hon. Lady the Member for Coventry, South (Miss Burton) and the right hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) in the tributes that they have paid to what the Council of Europe has done so well; and I would add a personal tribute to the hon. Lady for what she has herself done in this work.
She and the right hon. Gentleman have presented the case with the accent on youth and enthusiasm and on personal contact. In that I am with them all the way, and in spirit I am 100 per cent. in favour of this idea of the hon. Lady's. Indeed, when she first broached it at Strasbourg some little time ago, I thought then that on its merits it had tremendous possibilities. My enthusiasm for it was,


I dare say, partly engendered by the fact that I myself some years ago took part in athletics occasionally, although I at no time attained the distinction that brightened those days for the hon. Lady and many others.
I was interested in what the hon. Lady told us about the help and encouragement she had been given by the British Amateur Athletic Board and the Schools Athletic Association. She mentioned Mr. Crump, the honorary secretary of the former body, the British Amateur Athletic Board, and she quoted him as having said that his organisation—I think these were the words—would not fail to give this scheme its official blessing, although he made clear the limits to which that blessing would have to be confined. He said to her that the scheme would be an incentive to schools in their athletics.
As recently as 27th March Mr. Crump did in fact give us his views at the Foreign Office on this plan. I have his permission to quote a number of the things he says. Although there may be some misunderstanding, I think that undoubtedly in some very material ways the British Amateur Athletic Board must have changed its mind since Mr. Crump was in touch with the hon. Lady. I do not want to suggest that what I am going to quote ends the matter, because I do not think that it should or does; but it does cast at least a temporary cloud across the outlook.
Here are some of the things Mr. Crump says:
In the first place, I ought to say that the British Amateur Athletic Board and, in fact, most of the Governing Bodies of athletics in Europe, do not consider that an extension of international competition to cover the youth age-groups is in itself a practical or desirable thing. International competitions exist in plenty and already tax the organisational abilities of the Governing Bodies concerned, and inasmuch as large-scale international gatherings do inevitably tend to bring into the athletic arena matters of National prestige, it is felt that the present competitions are sufficient for the purpose.
He then mentions that there is anyhow a European championship every four years, which is costly. A little later in his letter he says:
The International Amateur Athletic Federation would, I am sure, set its face against giving permission for a full-scale youth international athletics contest between only a group of Nations constituting the Council of Europe, and in discussions I had last November on the subject of the proposed Strasbourg International meeting, I found opposition to the

proposal from all the countries concerned. In saying, therefore, that the British Amateur Athletic Board could not give its wholehearted support to the proposals on the grounds of finance, undesirability, and difficulty of organisation, I do hope that the sponsors of the scheme will not fail to recognise that this is a considered view based on very long experience of international athletics.
At a later point in the letter Mr. Crump does point out that if it is to be done at all it would have to be confined to schoolboys and schoolgirls. Of course, that is precisely what the hon. Lady always had in mind, I think, and certainly what I had in mind—that it should not go further.
Mr. Crump ends by saying:
It is always the desire of the British Amateur Athletic Board to be as helpful as possible and if it were possible for me to give a more favourable opinion on the proposals to be considered, I assure you I would do so willingly. At this stage, however, I am bound to say that Mr. Abrahams and I are in agreement that a large-scale international athletics contest for youth would not be practicable and would not be desirable and, for our part, we hope that the greatest care will be taken before coming to a decision to give support to the staging of such a meeting.
Coming, as it does, after the original encouragement which was certainly given to the hon. Lady, I find this opinion a little difficult, at first blush, to understand. However, this letter was received only yesterday or the day before, and I should like time to get in touch with the British Amateur Athletic Board and find out exactly what difficulties, if any, have cropped up since the early days when the hon. Lady was in touch with it.

Mr. Robens: Does the Minister think that perhaps there has been some slight misunderstanding, and that Mr. Crump, in referring to youth, is thinking of teenagers, when in fact my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South (Miss Burton) and the noble Lord are thinking in terms of school children?

Lord John Hope: That is a possibility, although Mr. Crump was absolutely clear at the time, because we talked about schools when we were in conversation with him earlier. If there is a misunderstanding it is a pity. I think that we were quite clear. The hon. Lady the Member for Coventry, South was certainly quite clear. I heard her in discussion, and nobody disagreed. Still, I think that we can clear this matter up.
On the question of cost, the hon. Lady's figures do not come to as much as we have estimated. I will look at the matter again and, if I may, get in touch with her as to exactly what she meant by her figure of £1,500 as the outside total of this country's obligation. We made it a good deal more on the basis of an 18½ per cent. contribution, that is, if the Council of Europe is to be responsible.

Miss Burton: I am very nervous of saying anything in view of the noble Lord's reply, but it was one of the gentlemen whom I have mentioned who worked out the figures.

Lord John Hope: The hon. Lady need not be nervous of anything she says, because she says everything with such charm and conviction that nobody would mind.
We made the sum about twice as much. Even that would not come to very much. Nevertheless, it would have to be found, and of course that would be difficult. There are special difficulties in connection with the Foreign Office finding the money because, as the hon. Lady knows, it has never found money out of its Vote for sporting events, and if it started doing so it would be difficult to know where to stop. If there are any alternatives we will see whether anything can be done, but however small the sum, it would be difficult to get round the principle.
The hon. Lady has suggested several alternatives which might be tried. Her idea of the local authorities contributing at first sight has its obvious attractions, and certainly could be looked into. Her suggestion that the British Council might have a whack might be a little less popular in the quarters concerned. They are very stretched as it is. I will certainly look into the question of cost to see what we can do, but it will be difficult, and I do not want to give the impression that I am very optimistic about it.
In principle, I think that the hon. Lady has done a great service in having thought of this idea, which was her idea entirely. So far as its merits and the results which I am sure it would have are concerned, I can think of nothing more worthy to try to get on to the curriculum. Further than that I cannot go, but I

am very glad to have been able to go so far to meet the hon. Lady's idea.

Miss Burton: I very much appreciate the Minister's attitude, and I know that the difficulties are not of his making, but I am completely dumbfounded. I have had the best contacts with these organisations and I have heard nothing about the development which the Minister has now indicated. I know that Mr. Crump had discussions with the International Federation in November, but is the Minister aware that Mr. Crump wrote to me at the end of December with suggestions for overcoming the difficulty and offering me his wholehearted support? Since then I have had nothing but assurances of his understanding, and therefore I am sure that there must have been a mistake somewhere.

Lord John Hope: I will try to clear the air.

BOY SOLDIERS, CYPRUS

4.29 p.m.

Mr. Victor Yates: I am grateful for the opportunity of raising today the question of boy soldiers and National Service men being posted overseas. There is much resentment both outside and inside the House at the fact that boy soldiers under the age of 18 are being posted overseas, especially to areas where violence is occurring. I regard the policy and practice of posting these soldiers to those areas as unjust, immoral, wasteful and a dangerous misuse of the young generation. There are over 300 boys abroad, of whom fifteen are in Cyprus.
A number of the parents deplore the refusal of the Minister to allow their sons, mere children of the age of 16, to receive their musical and other training in this country. They deplore the fact that these young people are thrust into areas of violence. My hon. Friend the Member for Feltham (Mr. Hunter) has himself represented these parents and has rendered a great service to humanity in calling the attention of this House to the matter. I hope, Sir, that he will be able to catch your eye and so be able to pursue this point about the boys.
I ask the Minister this afternoon what moral justification there is for refusing to accede to the request of the parents. The


Under-Secretary of State himself stated in this House recently:
… if any case is brought to my attention of a boy who genuinely wants to get out, and his parents want him to do so, I will always look into it and if necessary give him a free discharge."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st March, 1956; Vol. 549, c. 1646.]
Why, then, does the Minister disregard the wishes of the parents when they ask, not that the boys should be discharged, but merely that they should be removed from these areas of violence, in particular, Cyprus?
Secondly, I protest against the policy of sending National Service men, especially those who have only had three months' training, at the age of 18 years 3 months to scenes of colonial warfare. Whatever may be said in favour of conscription in the defence of one's country—if defence is possible when the hydrogen bomb is within the reach of all the great Powers—I think it is immoral that young men should be conscripted to kill and be killed in Colonial Territories.
My information is that in Belgium, France and the Netherlands conscripts are exempt from colonial service unless they volunteer. It is totally unworthy of our country that we should show less human regard for our young conscripts than the older conscript countries. Today in Cyprus the flower of British youth is witnessing before its eyes scenes of violence and repression. Our young men see Cypriots of their own age, or perhaps younger, fighting for freedom and self-determination, which are the proud boast of Britain, and among its proudest possessions.
There are 20,000 National Service men abroad at twenty-eight stations, including Germany, Gibraltar, Malaya, Kenya, British Guiana, Cyprus, Hong Kong, Singapore and Korea. The Minister has informed us that there are 7,800 National Service men in Cyprus at a cost of £200,000 a week. So every five weeks £1 million vanishes before our eyes, which I think is inflation gone mad.
The spiritual damage is incalculable. If the younger generation is nurtured in the art of killing and violence, no one can estimate the spiritual damage which occurs during the most impressionable years of their lives. We recently read of the court-martial case in Cyprus in which four soldiers were sentenced to imprisonment. Among them was a National

Service man, James Macaulay Ferguson, serving with a Scottish regiment, who was sentenced to three years' imprisonment. At that court-martial, the defending counsel, Mr. Richard Lomer, uttered these grave words:
Boredom and drink can make the most incredible situation arise, and can make fine fighting material do very dangerous and foolish things.
Instruction in the art of violence, boredom and drink can have very dangerous consequences in the formative years of their lives.
Many parents throughout the country are distressed. I have here a letter which I received yesterday from a parent residing in Leeds, who says:
I have a lad out there 18 years old. He was sent there after four months' training. I think it is murder on England's part.
Then, he goes on to say—
My wife is a complete wreck with her nerves over our boy out there.
That is one example of the distress. I ask the Minister if he will reconsider the question which I am raising today.
The country is in economic danger. We need skilled manpower, we need technical training, and, while other countries are turning out more technologists and scientists, when we are being priced out of the markets of the world, we are engaged in this colossal enterprise of tieing up our young men—our national assets—and mailing them to all parts of the world. I think the time has come for the House and the country seriously to consider whether the continuation of this policy is not alien to the traditions of our country. If we refuse to alter our present disastrous course, we shall, in my judgment, contribute to our own economic downfall as materially and effectively as if we dropped an atom bomb on our own island.
Therefore, I urge the Minister to reconsider the question which my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham put in regard to the boys of 16, and consider whether we should continue to send boys of that age with only a short training to all these areas overseas. Should he not reconsider this policy, and consider how best we can utilise our youth and our manpower in order that our country may reach to a higher level and overcome the very great economic difficulties with which it is faced today?

4.39 p.m.

Mr. A. E. Hunter: I am very grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Ladywood (Mr. V. Yates) for the opportunity of saying a few words in this debate. My hon. Friend has dealt with the matter under discussion in his usual sincere and forceful way, and, in the short time at my disposal, I want to speak about the 16-year-old boy soldiers now serving in Cyprus, their official description being band boys.
I became interested in this question because three parents, all my constituents, asked me to intervene with the Secretary of State for War and request him to remove their boys from Cyprus because they were alarmed about their safety in that unfortunate island.
I have met about ten parents of boy soldiers in Cyprus. They have all protested most bitterly about their boys being sent to an active service station. They complain on three points which I will ask the Under-Secretary to consider: first, that they were never consulted before their boys were sent to Cyprus; secondly, the headlines in the Press about shooting and bomb-throwing are a constant worry to them; and, thirdly, that the boys, being in uniform, are a target for gunmen and terrorists.
There is also a moral side to the matter. Is it good for boys of 16, hardly more than children, to be in that island of tragedy in an atmosphere of hate, terror and despair? What will be the future effects on their minds? The boys are hardly out of their school days. I would ask the Secretary of State to consider this moral point very seriously.
The boys join the Army for a musical career. Let them be given their musical training in this country. It is a stupid policy to send boys to Cyprus, even though they may be attached to a regiment, for musical instruction, because sending them to Cyprus exposes them to danger and gives rise to worry and depression on the part of their parents.
I like bands, and I am sure that every hon. Member in the House likes to hear bands playing. We like them in Whitehall, at Buckingham Palace, in Hyde Park, in other Royal Parks and municipal parks and on village greens. However, I suggest that we do not want

bands playing in Cyprus, because if a band went out marching there it would be a target for any terrorist or gunman who might be lurking in a house, cafe or sidestreet.
Also, I do not think there is another country in the world which sends boys of 16—boy soldiers or band boys; band boys is probably the official term—to active service stations like Cyprus.
I would impress upon the Secretary of State that the boys are only 16. I have had many letters from parents in my constituency who are alarmed. My plea to the Secretary of State is that he should reconsider the whole matter and act with some humanity by removing the boys from Cyprus as soon as possible.

4.43 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. Fitzroy Maclean): The subject raised by the hon. Member for Ladywood (Mr. V. Yates) is scarcely a new one. He and his hon. Friends have raised it on a number of occasions at Question Time. It was clear that the hon. Member has by that means amassed an amount of information about it. Indeed, he knows almost as much as I do about the number of boys who are at different stations overseas, and so on.
However, I think the hon. Member is still entertaining a certain number of misapprehensions on the subject, and that has led to the matter getting a little out of perspective. I should like to try to put it back into perspective so that the House and the public at large can judge the reasons which underlie our policy.
First of all—and this cannot be emphasised enough—I should like to point out that the bandboys who are serving in Cyprus and elsewhere overseas are volunteers for service world-wide. Hon. Members opposite suggest that the boys' parents resent and protest against the fact that the boys have been sent to Cyprus and presumably they would extend that to other active Service stations. However, in every case, including the constituents of the hon. Member for Feltham (Mr. Hunter), the parents or guardians of the boys have signed a form, Army Form B 5110. It is entitled:
Form of parents' consent".


The terms of the undertaking which the parents give are these:
Do you understand that
(a) enlistment will be into the Regular Army?
(b) the terms of service will be to serve with the colours until he is 18 years of age and thereafter for"—
a further period.
It specifically says:
Band and drummer boys … may be liable to serve overseas at any time after they have reached the age of 16 years.
Finally, it says:
Have you explained to your son/ward, his obligations as set out above?
Do you consent to his enlistment into Her Majesty's Army on the terms set out above?
For every boy we have a form completed affirmatively by the parent or guardian and signed by the parent or guardian stating that he realises that the boy has enlisted into the Regular Army for service world-wide after the age of 16 and stating explicitly that he has explained the conditions to the boy and agrees to them. It may be said that some of the younger boys enlisted when the situation which at present exists in Cyprus did not exist and that there were different conditions, but that does not apply to Kenya and Malaya where there are also bandboys. Therefore, when the parents signed the form, they knew perfectly well that the boys would be serving overseas, if necessary in active service stations, and agreed to that.

Lieut.-Colonel Marcus Lipton: Does anything in the form indicate that a boy might be sent to an overseas station in which there is actual fighting. Do the parents understand that?

Mr. Maclean: The form says that they might be sent at any time. There may, of course, be disorders or active service in any station at any time, which is basically why we have soldiers in different parts of the world. It must be quite clear to parents that that is liable to happen. I remind hon. Members again that the duties of the boys are with the band. They are employed only with the band and there is no question in any case of their being employed on operational duties.

Mr. V. Yates: One of the boys has actually been wounded. Are not the boys therefore in considerable danger?

Mr. Maclean: Perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to come to that point in due course.
We do not consider that the situation in Cyprus at present makes it necessary for us to bring home the married families—although, as I have said, we are prepared to do so if they apply. The number of applications which we have had from married families with small children has been negligible. Nor do we consider at present that the situation makes it necessary to bring home the bands or the boys serving with them. I will come to that in a little more detail in a moment.
We consider that service with a band for a boy who is interested in music and likes Army life, and who is prepared to join the Army on those terms, offers a very good career, an agreeable life, good prospects of promotion and a chance to see the world. It is presumably because of that that these boys volunteer for service as bandboys. If they thought that they would not like it, they would not volunteer.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: If the boys find out that they do not like it, and the parents think that the boys do not like it, will they have the right to come home?

Mr. Maclean: I dealt with that point the other day.
Our object in making this arrangement and in providing for bandboys' service in the Regular Army is because we want to attract boys who are well-suited to become Regular soldiers. If, after a time, boys find that they are not so suited—that they do not like it—and if we find that they are unsuited, in every case we will certainly give sympathetic consideration to a reasonable application for discharge, if we consider that the circumstances justify it.
One hon. Member put forward a case for compassionate discharge on, I think, grounds of health. In that case, we did not consider that the circumstances justified it, any more than we do in a certain number of other cases.

Mr. Hunter: His mother was ill and I asked for his release on compassionate grounds.

Mr. Maclean: We did not consider that in that case the circumstances justified it. As I have said, we will go into each case on its merits. It is not in our interest to keep boys in the Army who are not suited to Army life, who do not like it and who want to get out, and we will certainly give any genuine case very sympathetic consideration.
On the question of service overseas, the principle in the Army is—and I am glad that the hon. Member for Feltham said he approved of bands in principle, liked hearing them play, and so on—that the band goes with the regiment and that the bandboys go with the band and with the regiment. One of the reasons they go with the regiment is because we think that a boy who is to be a Regular soldier should get to know the regiment in which he is to serve as soon as reasonably possible.
We only send these boys abroad provided that certain conditions are fulfilled, that there are the necessary educational facilities, that the climatic and working conditions are not likely to injure the health of the boys, that there is adequate living accommodation and facilities for welfare and supervision, and that the boys have reached a sufficient standard of general and musical education to fit them to be active members of the band from the time they get there. I repeat that we send them abroad only when there are facilities for general and musical education and essential normal military training. So long as they remain boys they are employed only with the band, and never upon operational duties.
We consider that these conditions are at present fulfilled in Cyprus. We also consider that the present situation there does not make it necessary for us to bring home married families. I emphasise that there are many married families with small children in Cyprus practically none of whom have considered it necessary to ask to come home. There again, we should sympathetically consider any such application in that or any other active

service station. Very few have been made in Cyprus, and all that these boys are being asked to do is to share the risks of women and small children in that station.

Mr. Hunter: They are in uniform.

Mr. Maclean: Yes, but they are not employed upon operational duties. That should be clearly stated again and again.
The hon. Member referred to National Service men serving there. The Government's view is that the Army should be an integrated force, and that Regular soldiers and the National Service men should be treated on roughly the same basis. Certain conditions are laid down which have to be satisfied before young National Service men are sent abroad. They have been stated before, but I may as well state them again. No National Service man is sent overseas until he has reached the age of 18 years, has done at least 10 weeks' training, and has had at least 12 weeks' service. Long experience shows, in our opinion, that those safeguards are sufficient. It also shows that young National Service men are well qualified to fulfil the often arduous duties which are required of them, and that they not only fulfil them very well but, in a great many cases, take pride in doing so.
I should like to conclude by mentioning something which is occasionally lost sight of in these discussions. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House would join me in paying a tribute to our troops in Cyprus and other active service stations overseas. They have to fulfil hard, dangerous and often disagreeable tasks, and they do so with wonderful spirit, great courage and a restraint which is worthy of the finest traditions of the British Army.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Five o'clock, till Tuesday, 10th April, pursuant to the Resolution of the House yesterday.